Should The UK Use The Death Penalty?

This week i have heard several reports that people connected with the 7/7 attacks could be tried with treason, and my understanding is that treason is the only crime in the UK that still carries the death penalty!

So if these terrorists and future terrorists are tried for treason, could they be given the death penalty?

And if they could, should they???


Mic

No, I think you'll find there is no longer any provision for the 'death penalty' in the UK at all, anymore.

When the British Gov signed up to the 'European Convention on Human Rights' that was the end of all that.

Good thing too IMO.

The one thing that separates us from the barbarian is, IMO, that we refuse to act like the barbarian; in my view a significant part of that is that we refuse to take life (self/national defence apart).

As to whether this treason idea takes off?
I'd be surprised that there isn't a ton of other law more appropriate (and up to date) as opposed to such an archane law.
We shall see.

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
The one thing that separates us from the barbarian is, IMO, that we refuse to act like the barbarian; in my view a significant part of that is that we refuse to take life (self/national defence apart).

Does that mean you consider the US 'Barbarians' for using the death penalty?

Mic

Originally posted by MickeyDee
Does that mean you consider the US 'Barbarians' for using the death penalty?

- Well seeing as you ask, yes, I think the US 'state' (or 'states') are barbaric for deliberately taking human life which would otherwise have survived.
Sorry if it offends anyone but that's my view on any country that takes life in that manner.

It's the reason why I won't go to the USA, just as it was a reason for not visiting Turkey until recently (Turkey abolished it in 2002).
IMO it is a fundamental and gross violation of human rights and I won't holiday and spend my money in countries where they do that.

(and waving the wrong of murder around to justify this wrong does not IMO make it right.)


[edit on 8-8-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

As Sminkley said capital punishment has been abolished in the UK.

Wikipedia
Capital punishment in the United Kingdom
The last remaining provisions for the death penalty under military jurisdiction (except in times of war) were removed when the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in November 1998. When the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights was ratified on the 20 May 1999 all provisions for the death penalty were finally abolished in the United Kingdom. The UK later (October 10, 2003) acceded to the 13th Protocol, explicitly abolishing the death penalty under all circumstances.

And I fail to see any benefit to it in these circumstances were it legal.

On one hand bearing in mind that to become a martyr is already in the mind of these terrorists, I don't see that any benefit would come from granting them their wish, rather the contrary. Every cause loves a martyr. Perhaps not to the 'ultimate sacrifice' that we have here, but to some lesser or greater degree. Any martyr is a great rallying point.

Winston Churchill gave many memorable quotes, but this is one that I heard mentioned again recently;

Winston Churchill
The grass grows green on the battlefield, but never on the scaffold.

On the other hand, for those who wish recompense the treatment that will undoubtedly be suffered in prison should be satisfactory. (For those who claim that prison is soft, you need to spend some extended time as a regular inmate, let alone one hated for their crimes.) I would have assumed the thought of such prolonged suffering should be preferred than a relatively quick and painless death by those who are of that mind and satisfy any eyes clouded with the lust for vengance and little else.

It seems from both perspectives then that the death penalty would be counterproductive anyway.

Jak

[edit on 8/8/05 by JAK]

I think that the death penalty, when related to terrorist organisations where one of its members is executed by a state death penalty, special circumstances should be taken into effect becasue of the possible rally of interest and support for further terrorist activites, sparked by that individuals martyrdom.

On the other hand however, the death penalty when related to crime where an individual is caught "red handed"in the act of a serious criminal activity (such as murder, and perhaps ONLY murder) which would definatly not spark a sense of martyrdom in any organisation, because the crime is completely seperate of organisational or political intent, I see no reason why the death penalty couldn't be implemented.

Law 8as with everything) is never black and white... and this area is sure to be a very distorted shade of grey...

Im reading the the Daily Mail and this is interesting..

"Today, the death penalty for treason is in abeyance under the terms of the 1998 human rights act. Yet it can be reinstated "in time of war or of imminent threat war"

It can be still used.

No. Taking a life, whether done by an individual or the state, is never right. State sponsored murder is still murder and I can't believe that there are no better ways of punishing people than simply killing them. This is without taking into account the chances of an innocent person being executed which makes it even less palatable.

I find the death penalty to be uncivilised and primitive and would in no circumstances like to see it reinstated here.

Originally posted by infinite
Im reading the the Daily Mail and this is interesting..

"Today, the death penalty for treason is in abeyance under the terms of the 1998 human rights act. Yet it can be reinstated "in time of war or of imminent threat war"

It can be still used.

Interesting.....


Ive decided that anyone convicted of murder through terrorism should not be given the death penalty but simply placed into any normal prison in Britain.
Inmates quickley learn why a new prisoner is there and their lives wouldnt be worth living whilst inside!

And for me that is a better punishment than the death penalty!


Mic

When the 6th Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights was ratified on the 20 May 1999 all provisions for the death penalty were finally abolished in the United Kingdom. The UK later (October 10, 2003) acceded to the 13th Protocol, explicitly abolishing the death penalty under all circumstances.

From this site

The Times appears to be using outdated info

Two things though:

Though crime rates are on the rise in the UK, there are many contributing factors - not just the lack of death penalty. Is gun control a factor? Probably, though this can be argued from both sides of that particular debate. Changes to population demographics will also inevitably be a factor; with increasing unemployment and poverty comes increased crime

Though we're not able to compare statistics (simply because since abolition, there aren't any), we know that the death penalty in the US is not an effective deterrant. This is probably for several reasons; one would be the simple "It's not applied consistently" argument. That's true; the DP in the US isn't applied consistently at all, and it could be argued that if it were actually carried out regularly and more frequently, things might be different. However, it's also not applied fairly. That's a huge problem in itself.

With that in mind...no, I don't think anything would be served by reinstating the death penalty in the UK, even for high treason. Not least because it would never stop the next guy from committing the same crime.

I generally support the death penalty, but have some reservations because of its finality and possibility that some innocent people could be killed.

But personally, if given the choice, I'd rather have the sanitized lethal injection death penalty now administered rather than spending the rest of my natural life in prison...so is it really a punishment?

Tough issue IMHO...

The death penalty is for barbarians, prison is both more humane and less plesent.

just look at Harold Shipman, he killed himself when he realised that he was never going to get out.

All thats needs to be done is to tighten up on prisoner monitoring to make sure that people like Ian Huntly are kept alive for as long as their in prison

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
The death penalty is for barbarians, prison is both more humane and less plesent.

I agree, can we really call ourselves a civilised nation if we were to drop our own standards to that of the accused criminal.

I'd like to think that we as a nation have risen above such acts of brutality, and anyway prison is a much more effective punishment, let them sit there for the rest of their life thinking on what they've done.

[edit on 20-8-2005 by UK Wizard]

So you can go on a killing rampage, and murder countless innocent people, ruin hundreds more lives, and the worst you can expect to receive is the same treatment as the guy next door who burgled the local Tesco, only for a little longer, 8 years on average I believe.

And while murderers are in jail they continue to kill, other inmates and prison warders have all been victims, and will continue to be so.

Not reserving the ultimate sanction for murderers goes hand in hand with restricting the right and ability for citizens to defend themselves, insofar as that goes, the UK is at least consistent.

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
So you can go on a killing rampage, and murder countless innocent people, ruin hundreds more lives, and the worst you can expect to receive is the same treatment as the guy next door who burgled the local Tesco, only for a little longer, 8 years on average I believe.

25 last time I checked, oh and BTW if you want to kill the sucker you do it I wont.
If he attacked me or my family I'd stop him but frankly I wont execute him.

And while murderers are in jail they continue to kill, other inmates and prison warders have all been victims, and will continue to be so.

Until what? We show them killing is right?

Not reserving the ultimate sanction for murderers goes hand in hand with restricting the right and ability for citizens to defend themselves, insofar as that goes, the UK is at least consistent.

So now to add with the fact I SHOULD own a firearm to defend myself from my own people I should now execute people?
....I dont quite think that strikes me as moraly right.

Originally posted by MickeyDee
Inmates quickley learn why a new prisoner is there and their lives wouldnt be worth living whilst inside!

And for me that is a better punishment than the death penalty!

That's what i've always believed in too, the death penalty is just too easy for them to get out of whatever atrocity they commited.

I defer to the expert on this, he says it all for me.

Namely Albert Pierrepoint, one of the last English hangmen and of a long family line of executioners whose executions in his own words ranged "in the hundreds"

This is what he had to say in his autobiography on his retirement in 1956:

I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge to other people... it is said to be a deterrent. I cannot agree. there have been murders since the beginning of time, and we shall go on looking for deterrents until the end of time. If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men, grandmothers. I have been amazed to see the courage with which they take that walk into the unknown. It did not deter them then, and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for. All men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.

Source: "Lord High Executioner" Edward L. Greenspan QC pg 247


[edit on 17-9-2005 by kegs]

Originally posted by devilwasp25 last time I checked, oh and BTW if you want to kill the sucker you do it I wont.
If he attacked me or my family I'd stop him but frankly I wont execute him.

You may be interested to read this:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Until what? We show them killing is right?

No, until you stop them from killing anyone else.

So now to add with the fact I SHOULD own a firearm to defend myself from my own people

It may not strike you as morally right, but others should be allowed that choice. In Britain, there is no choice, and I would never describe murderers as "my own people", they're just murderers.

[edit on 18-9-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
You may be interested to read this:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Last time you omitted several facts..
10 years for admitting at the earliest opertunity.

No, until you stop them from killing anyone else.

Thats an unachievable aim, unless you plan on pyscological screening at schools?

It may not strike you as morally right, but others should be allowed that choice. In Britain, there is no choice, and I would never describe murderers as "my own people", they're just murderers.
[edit on 18-9-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]

It seems to strike QUITE a lot of the population....
Also, if you see murderers as non human, what makes you superior to them?

I think there is a line between when it should and shouldn't be used.

I honestly believe in the event of people who willingly murder people [more than 1] or a serial rapist/pedophile then the death penalty is the better option.

If you leave them in prison for life then it is a waste of money [in fact, we spend over 10million on repeat offenders [murders, rapists and pedophiles] which I think should be better spent. However, they need to have a set period where they can gain a re-trial. But there are many cases when it is clear cut they did the crime. With the increase of DNA evidence as well as CCTV, etc the same will happen and I would rather that 10million+ goes on children or the NHS.