Death penalty in the UK

[The Don]

Okay; you have a family who are seeking asylum. They are denied, but refuse to leave. Their children are taken away from them. Do they get them back when (if) they leave the country? Isn't that incredibly distressing for the children as well? Isn't that treating the children as political pawns, rather than as people who need to be protected?

Or you have a family that come to the UK in full knowledge that they'll get refused asylum. However, they want their children to be fostered and receive an education. They're denied asylum. Their kids are removed and fostered. They disappear back to their country, having abandoned their kids. Widespread abuse of this set-up is possible and easy.

How exactly was this idea ever supposed to work, except as a draconian threat to asylum seekers that, if their application fails, they'll be stripped of their family and deported?

To repeat:

The parents cannot work legally because their asylum claim has been refused

The parents cannot claim benefits because their asylum claim has been refused

They have no income.

The British government are not responsible for the adults (after all they have come to the country on false pretences) but they are responsible for the welfare of the children.

There are two options, give the parents permission to work and/or claim benefits or look after the children whilst not looking after the parents (a.k.a. take the children into care)

The government cannot do the former for political reasons (where's the incentive to leave, just bring a kid and you'll get benefits forever) so they're left with the latter.

The children are returned to the parents when (if?) they are found and deported

Alternative suggestions would be appreciated

 

[Matabiri]

I’m not interesting in the state's interests, im interested in justice.

Just to be clear, I dont think the family should have final say in ALL punishment. Just when it comes down to life in prison or the death penalty.

Justice is supposed to be blind, and impartial. I don't think you can say that about the victim's family...

 

[BillyTK]

They had something like that in Afganistan. The family could accept blood money or personally kill the murderer, as I recall.

This does not sound like the basis for a legal system to me.

I was thinking similar on reading Tony's post. IIRC it's part of (suni?) muslim law.

 

[Tony]

Justice is supposed to be blind, and impartial. I don't think you can say that about the victim's family...

The victim's family isn’t deciding guilt or innocence, just the ultimate punishment.

 

[Matabiri]

To repeat:

The parents cannot work legally because their asylum claim has been refused

The parents cannot claim benefits because their asylum claim has been refused

They have no income.

The British government are not responsible for the adults (after all they have come to the country on false pretences) but they are responsible for the welfare of the children.

There are two options, give the parents permission to work and/or claim benefits or look after the children whilst not looking after the parents (a.k.a. take the children into care)

The government cannot do the former for political reasons (where's the incentive to leave, just bring a kid and you'll get benefits forever) so they're left with the latter.

Alternative suggestions would be appreciated

If people want to come here and work, why is that a problem?

I don't see why someone should get a job over someone else just because they happened to have been born in this country, if there's someone more enthusiastic and just as qualified applying.

If we're short of people who want to do physical work (plumbers, builders, whatever) because your average Brit thinks it's beneath an intellectual such as he, why not allow someone else who is interested to do the job?

I don't see the point in disallowing anyone from working, if they're qualified. So, to summarise, give them permission to work.

 

[BillyTK]

Just to be clear, I dont think the family should have final say in ALL punishment. Just when it comes down to life in prison or the death penalty.

Why?

 

[Tony]

Why?

I don’t think the state deserves the right to make a decision on someone's life.

 

[The Don]

The victim's family isn’t deciding guilt or innocence, just the ultimate punishment.

I can understand what you're trying to achieve here, an opportunity to make the victims feel more enabled. I personally think it's a bad idea and furthermore I fear that there will be operational difficulties with it.

What happens if the family of the victim splits, some wanting the dealth penalty some not.

Is it only the next of kin who count ?

What happens if my wife of 10 minutes doesn't want the death penalty for my killer but my parents of 30 years do

What happens if my estranged wife wants the death penalty but my kids don't

Or is is a case of any one person wanting (or not wanting) the death penalty would decide ?

 

[Matabiri]

The victim's family isn’t deciding guilt or innocence, just the ultimate punishment.

You said you were interested in "justice", which would presumably include some measure of the punishment fitting the crime.

 

[Suddenly]

Why doesnt that happen now? Why dont the defendants offer the state or the jury a bunch of money to let the defendant live?

This is illegal, as there are particular criteria as to whether a defendant should be sentenced to death or not; it isn't just the jury saying "he should live." If you establish criteria and restrictions on the family's choice, you limit their discretion. If you don't, you open the door to people being executed for odd reasons, such as race or wealth.

Why should a jury have that right? They have no stake in the matter.

This objection applies to your original suggestion as well. The prosecution of a crime is a matter involving the state and the defendant. The victim and the victim's family are only involved as far as they are witnesses. Only recently has there been a push to involve the victim in the criminal process, and even this stops short of making them a party.

Since the jury is made up of citizens of the state, and crime is by definition an act against the state, a jury has as much stake in the matter as anyone else. I'm suggesting that a jury would have to think long and hard before voting to kill someone if they knew they would be the ones pulling the switch. It would cut down on gratuitious use of the death penalty, and on the other side of the ledger would give the state a substantial ground to strike anti-death penalty people for cause. Those that would refuse under any circumstances to vote for death because they will not participate in the execution could rightfully be struck from a jury.

 

[sophia8]

I think Blunkett's idea is great. The problem is, you cant keep giving benefits to failed asylum seekers (aka illegal immigrants) but its proved basically impossible to force repatriation. Now what will happen if you have whole families without any benefits and without the right to work?

So its obviosuly better to take the children into care rather than let them become child-prostitutes or something isnt it?

But it's hardly cost-effective. It's far cheaper to give families benefits than take their kids into care. I haven't the time to look up the rates paid to foster-parents, but it's a lot more than the kids' parents would ever get.

 

[Tony]

You said you were interested in "justice", which would presumably include some measure of the punishment fitting the crime.

Do you not think life in prison or death is a fitting punishment for murder?

 

[BillyTK]

I don’t think the state deserves the right to make a decision on someone's life.

Why? And if not the state, then why should anyone else have that right?

 

[Matabiri]

Do you not think life in prison or death is a fitting punishment for murder?

Depends on the circumstance, which is not a decision a grieving and aggrieved person is generally in a condition to make on behalf of society.

Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done. But to allow the brother of a man who's, say, been murdered by his long-time beaten wife to insist on the death penalty would definitely undermine the "seen to be done" part.

 

[Tony]

Why?

Why should it?

And if not the state, then why should anyone else have that right?

It was their mom/dad/brother/sister/husband/wife that was killed. If anyone has that right, it is them.

 

[Thanz]

It was their mom/dad/brother/sister/husband/wife that was killed. If anyone has that right, it is them.

What you are interested in is not justice but revenge. It is amazing how often death penalty advocates equate the two.

 

[Tony]

Depends on the circumstance, which is not a decision a grieving and aggrieved person is generally in a condition to make on behalf of society.

Its not "society's"(the state's) decision, that's my point.

Justice must be done, and must be seen to be done. But to allow the brother of a man who's, say, been murdered by his long-time beaten wife to insist on the death penalty would definitely undermine the "seen to be done" part.

How?

 

[Tony]

What you are interested in is not justice but revenge.

Im interested in both.

 

[BillyTK]

Why should it?

For a number of reasons, but it's not my claim being tested here. Again, why?

It was their mom/dad/brother/sister/husband/wife that was killed. If anyone has that right, it is them.

This is not an answer, this is simply restating your initial claim. On what basis should they have that right?

Its not "society's"(the state's) decision, that's my point.

Society and the state are not exactly the same thing; the latter is a subset of the former.

Im interested in both [justice and revenge]

You carnt have both; they're pretty much exclusive.

 

[Tony]

For a number of reasons, but it's not my claim being tested here. Again, why?

You are claiming the state should have the power over someone's life. That was your implication.

This is not an answer, this is simply restating your initial claim. On what basis should they have that right?

That is my answer.

Society and the state are not exactly the same thing; the latter is a subset of the former.

I never said they were. But when most people use the term "soceity", what their really talking about is the state.

You carnt have both; they're pretty much exclusive.

No they aren't. Justice, revenge, and retribution are interconnected.