Death penalty in the UK

[ahirst]

Basically the death penalty cannot be re-introduced to the UK without the UK leaving the European Union.

I'll leave you to 'google' for the relevant documents, but Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ratified and incorporated into UK law in November 1999) bans the use of the death penalty in times of peace, and Protocol 13 (ratified etc. July 2003) is an absolute ban on its use.

Furthermore it is now against EU law to extradite suspects from any EU country to another country where they may suffer the death penalty upon conviction of their crime.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Basically the death penalty cannot be re-introduced to the UK without the UK leaving the European Union.

On the other hand, we could just be like France and do whatever the hell we want anyway.

 

[Cleon]

I've heard that it is considerably more expensive (in the US) to execute someone rather than imprison them for life. Soemthing to do with the lengthy, and very expensive, series of appeals that all death row inmates are entitled to, but lifers aren't.

Not quite true; every convicted person is allowed to appeal, up to the Supreme Court (not that this is any guarantee that SCOTUS will hear the case).

In a DP case, though, many states have laws that dictate an automatic appeal. Also, the convicted are much less likely to give up and just accept their sentence; so they'll appeal the verdict, the sentence, instructions to the jury, etc., all of which require a hearing.

Adding to the costs is the death warrant; cases have to be reviewed, sometimes by the governor, sometimes by a special commission, before a warrant is signed for the execution. Money, money, money. Then, if an appeal hearing is granted, you have to ask for a stay of execution from the court; more money, especially for the hearing. None of this applies to those who are simply imprisoned without a death sentence hanging over them.

It's not that people sentenced to death have more rights than life-sentenced people, it's just that there are more processes involved.

 

[Shane Costello]

FWIW Ireland was still sentencing people to death into the 1980's. Those convicted were IRA terrorists who'd murdered policemen. Those sentenced ultimately recieved a presidential pardon, both because capital punishment was frowned upon (if not explicitly banned) by Europe at the time, also for the simple reason that we never had an official Irish executioner, and had traditionally borrowed Albert Pierrepoint when the need arose.

 

[Agammamon]

. . .shadow home secretary, yesterday demanded the reintroduction of the death penalty. . .

So, is the shadow home secretary anything like the shadow government covering up the UFO's and running chemtrails throught the sky over here?

 

[corplinx]

It amazes me how much farther Europe has creeped out of the age of faith and superstition than America has but in other ways are so much more superstitious.

Execution is one of these throwbacks I will never understand the opposition to. Must be lingering catholic thinking.

 

[ChrisH]

The last public hangman in Britain, Albert Pierpoint, said that it had done no good at all.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Basically the death penalty cannot be re-introduced to the UK without the UK leaving the European Union.

Interesting. There was a period of time back around thirty years ago when the Supreme Court of the United States invalidated all death penalty laws under the rubrick of "cruel and unusual punishment" (8th amendment) and "equal protection" (14th amendment).

This is the reason, for example, that Sirhan Sirhan was not executed.

One by one, many states rewrote their death penalty laws to be constitutional within the decision. The same applies to Federal death penalties. Hence lethal injection and the required lengthy appeals process.

The EU has no equivalent to the Supreme Court does it? Suppose the UK just went ahead and restored the death penalty without formally withdrawing from the EU?

Could they be expelled from the EU?

 

[Tony]

Could they be expelled from the EU?

I doubt it would happen. It’s unlikely the EU would expel one of its primary cash cows. The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

The last public hangman in Britain, Albert Pierpoint, said that it had done no good at all.

Gilbert Clay would have disagreed.

... but he was a Public Headsman, which is quite another thing.

 

[Supercharts]

Why not re-introduce flogging? I believe the last flogging was in 1953. BICBW.
Flog a few and see what the people's reaction will be. Test the waters, so to speak.

 

[corplinx]

The point is, why bother housing anyone for the rest of their life on the taxpayer dole? We can put people down who humanely and be done with it instead.

If the proof of a crime is overwhelming and premeditiation is proven beyond doubt, it seems to me that instead of a life sentence we should simply terminate these people.

This only makes sense though if it costs less to get a death penalty conviction than it does to house/feed someone for the rest of their life.

Also, justice has to be fair for this to be fair. In America we couldn't even get a guilty verdict on OJ Simpson despite overwhleming evidence.

The death penalty is perfectly reasonable in a secular society but only as long as justice itself is even and untainted as much as possible.

 

[Matabiri]

Well, the Tories other wonderfull idea is to ship all illegal immigrants off to an imaginary impoverished desert island where they will all eat fish and coconuts, just like in the movies.

This being worse than Blunkett's idea of stealing their kids from them until they go away of their own accord?

Question: Is it possible to be a Home Secretary without being a complete (*expletive deleted*)?

 

[Supercharts]

One way around having the taxpayers pay for incarcerating a person for life instead of hanging them is to pay the public pay voluntarily for their upkeep.
Someone is found guilty of murder and sentenced to die on, for example, May 1, 2004. Unless the public voluntarily pays for his/her incarceration.
Pick a round number - 50,000Ls. / per year.
Those against Capital Punishment could go door-to-door to collect his/her upkeep. Every year collect 50,000 Ls. or, if not fully paid by May 1, 20?? he/she is executed.
They could have little tin cans, with slots on the top, put in pubs, locals etc.
If enough people contribute then he/she lives. If not enough money is collected consider the effort as a democratic 'vote' on the death penalty.

 

[Matabiri]

One way around having the taxpayers pay for incarcerating a person for life instead of hanging them is to pay the public pay voluntarily for their upkeep.
Someone is found guilty of murder and sentenced to die on, for example, May 1, 2004. Unless the public voluntarily pays for his/her incarceration.
Pick a round number - 50,000Ls. / per year.
Those against Capital Punishment could go door-to-door to collect his/her upkeep. Every year collect 50,000 Ls. or, if not fully paid by May 1, 20?? he/she is executed.
They could have little tin cans, with slots on the top, put in pubs, locals etc.
If enough people contribute then he/she lives. If not enough money is collected consider the effort as a democratic 'vote' on the death penalty.

Why not do this for the unemployed, as well? Or the sick or elderly? "Pay for the grannies in hospital, or we'll put them down on Friday!"

Better still, why not have politicians' salaries paid like this? If people feel they're getting value for money, they stick in a extra fiver for their MP, if not, he/she gets nothing. Seems fair to me.

 

[Suddenly]

Also, justice has to be fair for this to be fair. In America we couldn't even get a guilty verdict on OJ Simpson despite overwhleming evidence.

If you are implying the jury made the wrong choice, I wonder what particular piece of data makes you believe that you are more qualified than the jury to come to that conclusion. Is it because you saw parts of the trial on TV and they had to get by by being front and center in the courtroom through the whole thing?

Is there something else I am missing? The whole thing still looks like a clumsy plant job to me, but hey, CNN said the DNA evidence was reliable, so I must be wrong about that. Nevermind that a DNA test can never be more reliable than the people doing the test. Lab people wouldn't lie would they? I mean besides Fred Zain of course (We are still cleaning up that guy's mess).

Sorry. Just a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Ed]

If you are implying the jury made the wrong choice, I wonder what particular piece of data makes you believe that you are more qualified than the jury to come to that conclusion. Is it because you saw parts of the trial on TV and they had to get by by being front and center in the courtroom through the whole thing?

Well, the jury was supposed to review the evidence in the case when they deliberated. They returned a verdict in a couple of hours. That sorta suggests that they knew the verdict going in.

 

[Suddenly]

Well, the jury was supposed to review the evidence in the case when they deliberated. They returned a verdict in a couple of hours. That sorta suggests that they knew the verdict going in.

Not so sure about review. They were to only use information to decide. It is likely they took an immediate straw poll, saw they were unanimous, and spent the rest of the time making sure they didn't miss anything obvious.

Why do you suggest that should take hours, considering that if everyone agrees initially that there is reasonable doubt, it is over? It can't take that long to decide that the LAPD is pretty much full of crap and that virtually all the state's evidence smells like old cheese. Maybe in some circles it doesn't spill a lot of beer when blood "found" on the scene already has lab preservative chemicals in it, the main detective turns out to be a raging bigot, and items of clothing with blood on them are just "left out" in the middle of the floor. Perhaps these jurors just flat rejected much of the state's evidence as not credible? That just isn't going to take long to result in acquittal.

It is very common for a jury when delivering a jury verdict to act quickly, especially when it is obvious. I'd think a quick acquital goes to prove my point, that perhaps actually seeing the whole trial may create a different impression than seeing parts of it on TV, and being exposed to the opinions of various experts and not-so-experts.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Why not re-introduce flogging? I believe the last flogging was in 1953. BICBW.
Flog a few and see what the people's reaction will be. Test the waters, so to speak.

I assume you mean in the UK? What was flogging a penalty for in 1953?

The last flogging in the US Navy was sometime in the early 19th century, following the British naval tradition of rum, ********, and the lash.

Never a civilian penalty, nor a military one on land, at least in the USA.

I'm pretty sure flogging was at the captain's discretion for general discipline, not a judicial penalty.

Keelhauling was a good one, too.

 

[KelvinG]

The point is, why bother housing anyone for the rest of their life on the taxpayer dole? We can put people down who humanely and be done with it instead.

If the proof of a crime is overwhelming and premeditiation is proven beyond doubt, it seems to me that instead of a life sentence we should simply terminate these people.

This only makes sense though if it costs less to get a death penalty conviction than it does to house/feed someone for the rest of their life.

OK, but how on earth do we define exactly when proof of a crime is "overwhelming." I'm going to guess that most crimes don't have overwhelming proof of guilt. Does "beyond a reasonable doubt" equate with "overwhelming proof." It doesn't to me.
I'll guess that the death sentence would actually get imposed a lot less if some sort of stringent requirement for "certainty of guilt" was implemented.
And how much money would putting someone to death really save the government. Most prisoners on death row are there for many, many years anyway, exercising the appeal process.

And the bottom line for me is that if even one person is put to death and later cleared of a crime, then the state is guilty of murder. You can't just shrug your shoulders later and say "Oops, well better luck next time."