Human Rights

[Marcus]

In the UK system, the jury decides on guilt, and the judge decides the sentence. I believe when the death penalty was around the jury could also recommend mercy, but it was ultimately up to the judge whether or not the accused was hanged.

My thoughts on the death penalty are mixed, on a moral standpoint, I would probably say no to it, but on an economic and practical standpoint, yes.

Hanging a criminal and burying them is cheaper overall, in my opinion than keeping them incarcerated for life, and it does make damn sure they won't do it again. Of course on the other hand if you hang the wrong man then the mistake is irreversible, but although I don't know what the accuracy rate of convictions for murder is in the UK these days, I reckon it is most likely higher than it was in the 60s when the death penalty was abolished.

Then again you still have the moral issue that if you kill the wrong man, you have most likely killed an innocent man, and that in itself is wrong. The point therefore is to argue whether or not this evil is an evil worth having, in order to dispense justice to the majority of genuine murderers.

The next point is does the death penalty work as a deterrent? Now Pierrepoint famously said that it didn't, and since most murders are heat of the moment, often domestic disputes where logic and reasoning flies out of the window the moment someone picks up the kitchen knife, I would believe him. But what about premeditated murder, where somebody has plotted and planned to kill someone, not in a moment of rage, but in a clear, cool headed thought process over days? One could argue these people are mentally incapable to stand trial, and whatever ails them that they carry on and kill the person with no thought for the consequences would mean that it wouldn't deter them anyway. But I think that if it can be proven they planned to kill someone, and furthermore attempted to dispose of the body or attempted to cover up their crime, the death penalty would be appropriate, because I feel that there is no rehabilitating these people.

The British justice system at the moment suffers from not being seen to actually dispense justice where its due. Cutting time off jail sentences for 'good behaviour' is in my opinion farcical, and not based at all on 'the poor lickle murderer' but the fact that prisons are overcrowded and they want to punt people out as soon as possible before the next lot arrive.

So why are the prisons overcrowded? You could argue prison sentences are handed out for minor offences that don't warrant them, non payment of fines, or moral degradation in society. I don't believe in the latter to the full extent of its meaning, but I do believe that a lot of people see the justice system as incompetent, and believe they can literally get away with murder, therefore more are committing crimes, leading to more convictions and more prisoners. I believe that the death penalty would help to bring some of these people back to reality.

On its own, the death penalty wouldn't reduce crime figures much, but combining it with a more streamlined system to process criminals would. This doesn't mean I am in favour of mass trials though, I still believe in a fair trial, and to be honest, I wouldn't know exactly where to start on the justice system as it stands. Your thoughts Jubal?

[Jubal]

I'm not sure that the economic and practical arguments DO favour the death penalty.

For example, there's the question of perverse incentive; a murderer who knows their life is forefeit has absolutely every compulsion to keep killing in order to prevent others finding out about their crime. There's also the fact that in Texas in 2009, the homicide rate was 5.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. In the UK it was just 1.17; the death penalty does not seem to have a major effect on the homicide rate. Perverse incentives, I believe, are too dangerous in very practical terms for it to be worth a punishment that has no obvious correlation with low crime rates.

In my opinion, the main problem with the British justice system is a case of doing what looks good not what works. We need to start giving out fewer 6 month to one year sentences; these do no good whatsoever, and throw people in with other criminals. Short stay prisons often, by these means, become "crime colleges". The main thing which will improve the justice system from a practical standpoint is sentences that are long enough and well-funded enough to rehabilitate criminals fully instead of throwing them out on the streets in just as bad a state as they were when they came in.

I mean, if you put a thief in prison for eight months, then put him out on the street, just as you found him, with a black binbag with some clothes in and 20 quid in his pocket, and still with no skills or employability, what would you expect the result to be?

[Marcus]

I agree that short prison sentences do little to actually help society for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I don't know what percentage of the costs are from giving people short sentences, but I imagine it would be sizeable.

As for perverse incentive, would they [the murderer] not do pretty much the same thing if they knew they were going to be locked up for life? Once they're in there, they can never be released until they are to old to be a threat, and they will still cost the country money afterwards because they are unemployable and thus living on pension/benefits. Yes, you could exclude them from such support due to what they've done, but that could piss them off enough to potentially kill again.

In my opinion, if the justice system and the police were known to be more capable of capturing murderers and handing out appropriate sentences, the death penalty would contribute as a deterrent. On its own, it would be no more a deterrent than the threat of being detained until heat death of the universe.