UKH

There's a whole lot wrong with this world and every now and again, you stumble across something that unexpectedly kicks you in the guts. In this case lurking in my twitter feed was a short video (that I choose not to share) of...

"Singaporean death row inmate, Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam eats his last meal before execution"

In which, his hands quiver as he eats and he has the look of a terrified rabbit. Lost and terrified.

How barbaric.

I hope this thread won't descend into a who deserves capital punishment and who doesn't style debate - There's people out there who's crimes are beyond depraved. How cowardly and arrogant is it though, to put a human being through an ordeal like this? What kind of example is the state setting? Sick.

In reply to broken spectre:

"Judge a society by how it treats it's criminals" - various

People often don't take into consideration what the death penalty does to the society that imposes it, the price isn't only paid by the subject. It makes me sad knowing how many people in the UK would support bringing it back. 

In reply to Sharp:

My main objection to it is that you can't undo it.

Sure, you can't give people years of their life back either, but at least they can be released and compensated financially if wrongly convicted.

In reply to broken spectre:

Why anyone would want to give the state the power to kill them is beyond me.

The incompetence and target led nature of investigations leads to false guilty verdicts. I have little to no faith in our system.

In reply to broken spectre:

When you consider some of the comments within the jury service thread, the occasional corruption within the police service and previous cases of long term false imprisonments there's no justification for the death penalty. Many of those who do murder others don't care if they live or die themselves, so it's not even a disincentive to murder. There are clearly bad apples, where life sentences should be just that, even if that means taxpayers money for 50 years, we don't need to lower ourselves to their level and take a life. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

I think society inflicting that amount of suffering upon people may do something to the individuals who are a part of it, too, in the way that we can absorb our cultures 'by osmosis', from how some people can talk about the use of guns and potentially taking another person's life, in countries which have both the death penalty and widespread fire arms ownership, there can be a certain matter of fact way of speaking about it, which almost underplays the gravity of things, I don't think it's a healthy thing (for certain sexual crimes I'd have people in jail for 30 years minimum too, though, so that they're left with a legacy of their own which they can't shake off, but that's a different topic). 

In reply to Neil Williams:

Going well for the Horizon victims...

[edit: that's not to detract from your point, though...]

.

In reply to Timmd:

I'd agree, in part a death sentence for murder invokes an eye for eye mentality, which could creep into other offences where the victim feels justified in doing the same back, rather than chasing another form of punishment via the police.

But perhaps that's us, people who love the outdoors, doing activities, the idea of a loss of freedom hurts, where as with others less so.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Or people previously wrong convicted who had bed & board deducted from their compensation, as if it was their choice to be in prison. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

I don't think it is to do with us beng outdoor people, I think we absorb 'the background noise' which surrounds us, which is why attitudes about certain things can change across society, like same sex parents or relationships, or punks (children from same sex parents do just as well, according to psychology studies and studies which measure different life outcomes). A friend from a minority group once likened people to being like cattle in how they follow along with one another about attitudes, which is definitely quite cynical, but I think it touches upon how people can seem to change what they think when most others do too (I think it's to do with him having struggled).

Edi: Youtube ex prisions talk passionately about the loss of freedom being the hardest, re the simple things like going to the fridge for something to eat, them having a nearly complete lack of choice being a difficult thing, I think we all apprecate freedom.

In reply to broken spectre:

I think it 'simply' boils down to what you want from a criminal justice system.

1. Revenge - capital punishment works well in theory. However does it work really? Do victims feel better? Does society? You only have to listen to the mother of Brianna Ghey on Radio 4 this morning to know that there can be much better ways of dealing with the natural human emotion of a desire for vengence.
    
2. Deterrence - do we just want to put people off crime? Well you only have to look at violent countries to see that capital punishment doesn't really work. Let's face it, criminals mostly don't carry out a cold, rational risk assessment before committing most crimes (especially those punishable by death in certain countries). 
    
3. Rehabilitation - do we want to ensure that people who do fall into the criminal justice system can be remade into productive members of society where possible? Well capital punishment essentially says that we've given up on certain people and suggests that to society that human rights are conditional, which is surely a contradiction in terms. I'm not saying rehabiliation can work for everyone but most people are not 100% good or 100% bad. The problem with this though is that members of the public who want option (1) don't want to give (always other people) a second chance.

In reply to yorkshireman: Somebody who used to post on here who had a sister who was murdered by a couple of men, said that the idea of the violent people no longer being around anymore was one potential benefit of the death penality, when she got involved in this kind of discussion. I can see why somebody would feel like that if they'd lost a relative to murder, like the world is a less dangerous place as a consequence, but I still think it's plausibly not healthy for society to have the death penality...

In reply to broken spectre:

If we could be 100% sure that only the truly guilty were convicted of their crimes and that the death penalty was 100% 'humane', we should still not do it. That's not out of sympathy for the criminals, but based on the impact the death penalty has on the society that implements it.

In reply to broken spectre:

"Capital punishment sets moral compass spinning" was your thread title.

The correct response to that is "No, it absolutely doesn't".

Capital punishment has no place whatsoever in a modern, progressive, civilized, democratic society.

In reply to Timmd:

I can see why somebody would say that in that situation but I feel like it's the opposite. I think that a violent state produces a more violent society. Not just physical violence but austerity, lack of compassion and forcing people into harder and harder situations produces a less compassionate and more violent society IMO. 

In reply to dsh: I think America seems to fit your perspective. It possibly helps to illustrate why victims shouldn't be responsible for deciding on the penalty paid, in understanding why the ex poster would feel like that at the same time as thinking it's bad for society. 

I think most things have been said here and I for one have thought about this enough. A final comment for the hang 'em high brigade that have frequented this thread, judging at least by some persistent downvoting of anti capital punishment comments is this... Callousness and vanity (which is what vengeance is) only deepens wounds. This isn't a threat, it's the reality. You can like and dislike who you choose but to trust the state with the right to decide on who lives and who doesn't and you're simply crackers!

In reply to dsh:

I fund it amusing when tories say tough on crime, tough on causes or crime... which is basically half their policies over the last decade forcing people to the absolute limits and slashing prison / courts funding on top. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

Their traditional claim to be the "party of law and order" is indeed laughable, but FWIW "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was actually one of Tony Blair's slogans.

In reply to deepsoup:

Was it, it's clearly all just blurred together. I always thought Gordon Brown could or would have done better, but never really had a chance. Maybe he needs a come back. 

In reply to broken spectre:

Who are they? I haven't seen any 'hang 'em high' comments. 

In reply to ExiledScot:

This is the problem though. Politicians always feel they have to be tough on crime. When this doesn't work, the only option is to double down and be tougher. In the US in particular this had lead to an increasingly escalating arms race in terms of punishment leading to one of the most incarcerated societies in the western world. 

I don't want my politicians to be necessarily tough on crime. Saying this might give them a hard on at the lectern and generate similar feelings among certain portions of the electorate but I actually want my politicians to be effective on crime. If that means not being tough then so be it. Just do the job and stop pretending you're going to be increasingly tougher than the last. 

In reply to yorkshireman:

Have a bucketful of 'likes' for that.

In reply to yorkshireman:

That's a good point, the obvious counter line to any "tough on crime" politician then becomes "so you want to be tough on crime, but you're not bothered about being effective".

In reply to yorkshireman:

That was the point of Tony Blair's slogan really - the second part of it, "tough on the causes of crime" meant exactly what you're saying, that in order to to deal effectively with crime it's not enough to just make a show of performative toughness, ratcheting up sentences etc.

The kids who were denied opportunities to improve their lives when most of the Sure Start centres were closed down under austerity are just about coming of age now.  And the consequences of the Tories' disastrous break-up and privatisation of the probation service (orchestrated by Chris "no ferries" Grayling no less, and even by his dismal standards not his best work) will be felt for years to come. 

Remember that speech Theresa May made as home secretary to the Police Federation, telling them to "stop scaremongering" about further cuts to policing budgets?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/20/stop-scaremongering-and-pr...

'She accused the Police Federation of scaremongering and repeatedly “crying wolf” over the impact of the previous round of cuts in police funding as part of the government’s austerity programme..'

'“You can choose protest, and continue to shout angrily from the sidelines for the next five years. Or you can choose partnership, and work with me to change policing for the better,” she told the Police Federation annual conference.'

Hands up who believes now that the Tories have "changed policing for the better" since 2015?

In reply to ExiledScot:

And not even a pretence of being tough on crime within their party!

In reply to broken spectre:

Interestingly, there is an oldish documentary where Trevor McDonald meets with US inmates. At some point he interviews a man who was on death row and was then given a full life sentence after a charity provided legal help. The guy described his situation as worse once he was on the whole life sentence, given that he was mid-20's and looking at 50-60 more years of prison time.

Similarly the UK has historical IPP sentences, which have no maximum and can be extended indefinitely. The suicide rate of these inmates is extremely large.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for the death sentence, I'm just saying that one of the alternatives can also be extremely cruel. It's a debate requiring a lot of nuance.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Yet we're prepared to tolerate innocent parties being killed in lots of other situations if the risk is low enough or outweighed by the benefits. Road traffic accidents, medical procedures, or, more relevant to the discussion, releasing a convicted murderer who goes on to kill again. 

My objection to the death penalty is that it makes the most fundamental human right, the right to exist, optional for a class of people, essentially denying their humanity. That's immediately problematic, and if you argue that some people *are* subhuman because of the crimes they commit, then how do you decide? Murderers? War criminals? Traitors? Extremists? I think it's a slippery slope best avoided and that the very idea of this type of state sanctioned killing has a corrosive effect on society, as others have already pointed out.

Having said all of that, I don't regard anyone who is in favour of the death penalty as being at all evil or crazed, as some do. It's a perfectly understandable position to take. I just disagree.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Yet we're prepared to tolerate innocent parties being killed in lots of other situations if the risk is low enough or outweighed by the benefits. Road traffic accidents, medical procedures, or, more relevant to the discussion, releasing a convicted murderer who goes on to kill again. 

My objection to the death penalty is that it makes the most fundamental human right, the right to exist, optional for a class of people, essentially denying their humanity. That's immediately problematic, and if you argue that some people *are* subhuman because of the crimes they commit, then how do you decide? Murderers? War criminals? Traitors? Extremists? I think it's a slippery slope best avoided and that the very idea of this type of state sanctioned killing has a corrosive effect on society, as others have already pointed out.

Having said all of that, I don't regard anyone who is in favour of the death penalty as being at all evil or crazed, as some do. It's a perfectly understandable position to take. I just disagree.

In reply to Dexter:

Accidentally killing people is worlds apart from deliberately doing so, though gross negligence manslaughter type deaths sit awkwardly in the middle.

Yes, that one is difficult, but it does fit alongside the principle that punishment isn't just a deterrent and a form of vengeance but also rehabilitation if possible.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

Neither does a person who for example tortures, rapes and murders children. I wouldn't kill them though but only because that's an easy out. Stick them in a 6x9 cell with a toilet and a bed and and nothing else and make sure they never see sunlight again. 

In reply to broken spectre:

We live in a society where at least one graffiti writer has been given a longer prison sentence for painting trains than Stuart Hall was given for multiple sexual offences against children, and where attendees at a protest in Bristol in 2021 seemingly got battered by police with little justification and then charged with and convicted of ludicrously severe crimes with a distinctly political undertone. Would I trust the state with that sort of power even if I agreed with it?

'ck no.

In reply to Dax H:

The trouble there is that then you're heading towards exacting retribution, and deriving satisfaction from their fate, which becomes a bit morally murky (though it's also an understandable response, especially if you're a direct victim).

In reply to broken spectre:

Other countries have the death penalty. I don't like this but accept that I cannot change it.

What upsets me here is that someone chose to video those moments and share it. Almost as abhorrent as the penalty itself.

In reply to broken spectre:

I’m in the hang ‘em high brigade, but reluctantly and after many years being opposed to it.

I get the negative impact on society that pp’s have alluded too. I get the fact we don’t have sufficient faith in the judicial system to get these decisions right, we only have to look at the US for that.

But when there is irrefutable evidence against a monster of society through DNA and confession I don’t have a problem with them being got rid of.

As much as we query the judicial system getting convictions wrong let’s not forget there is as much culpability on the other side of the fence when they are sanctioning release.

In my advancing years I do also now believe some people are born evil and incapable of rehabilitation to make them normal functioning members of society. For many years I believed we were a product of our upbringing, the old nurture v nature debate. 

You only have to look at Jon Venables and what he and Thompson did to Jamie Bulger when they were both very young themselves. This is surely inherent evil behaviour only capable of by inherently evil people. His subsequent ‘rehabilitation’ resulted in re-offending on release, re-imprisonment and release and offending again. Now I’m not saying we execute children but at least his last parole hearing has him remaining behind bars. But who’s to say he won’t be granted release again in due course and invariably re-offend. Let’s just pray it doesn’t result in further harm.

Theirs is a difficult case and I used it to highlight the evil of man (and boy) not to support capital punishment in that instance. 

We then move onto the adult child killers. A recent case causing controversy was that of Colin Pitchfork. A double child rapist and murderer in the 80’s. He was convicted through DNA evidence and a confession. What is the purpose of keeping him alive? Yet he was very nearly released on parole again after previously being recalled to prison for breaking his licence. It was local outrage and campaigning that halted his release. The judicial system is playing Russian roulette with these monsters and potentially putting members of the public in harms way.

Some people do not deserve the chance of rehabilitation. Some people cannot be rehabilitated. They have carried out heinous crimes, they do not deserve any state sympathy or a plethora of professionals trying to ‘work with them’. They need to be accountable for their despicable decisions and actions. And that can only mean their removal.

In reply to John_ds:

I can't be arsed to debate the moral aspects of the thing with you, but fwiw if you think DNA evidence and/or a confession are very significantly more reliable than other forms of evidence (let alone "irrefutable") then you're quite mistaken.

In reply to John_ds:

In the case of Colin Pitchfork:

An initial suspect was Richard Buckland, a local 17-year-old with learning difficulties who, while innocent of both murders, revealed knowledge of Ashworth's body and admitted to the Ashworth crime under questioning, denying the first murder. (Wikipedia)

Confessions aren't immutable evidence of guilt, sometimes.

​​​​​​​​

In reply to deepsoup:

DNA gets it wrong, confession can be wrong / fabricated etc but there are also cases that are irrefutable, the guy that hacked Lee Rigby to death in public, the bloke the other year that took a shotgun to his family then shot people on the street. 

In reply to Dax H:

In my opinion capital punishment is not something I feel is appropriate in a civilised society. It feeds a general atmosphere of brutality and vengeance which leaks out into public life and encourages violence. I look at the way right wing politicians have used crude and divisive language to further their aims which have provoked and enabled physical actions out in public. There are 'irrefutable' cases where the murderer definitely did it but where extenuating circumstances weren't considered. Ruth Ellis is a case in point. I don't want to live in a place where 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' holds sway. Murder is sickening but cold blooded state killing is just as bad. I speak as someone who hasn't had a loved one killed but I look at people who have, and yet still don't seek vengeance, and I hope I would have the same courage and grace.

In reply to Dax H:

An advantage of not executing them is that neither of us can remember the name of "the guy that hacked Lee the guy that hacked Lee Rigby to death". If executed, they'd be remembered and idolised by supporters as martyrs.

Islamist terrorists often strap on fake suicide bombs - they want to die as heroes for their cause. The idea of imprisonment to deny a terrorist's wishes appeals to me and creating people who we know will be idolised as martyrs seems a poor anti-terrorist strategy.

I don't think we should needlessly raise the profile of terrorists so they should be the last people subject to capital punishment.

In reply to broken spectre:

I am narrowly against the death penalty for many of the ethically reasons listed above. 

However I am strongly against it for economic reasons. Counterintuitively, its way cheaper to lock them up for life. 

The American experience shows us endless appeals, tying up the courts and the legal system. It turns out that killing them costs tens of millions each time.

https://ejusa.org/resource/wasteful-inefficient/#:~:text=The%20alarming%20c....

In reply to John_ds:

Maybe some of these confessions wouldn't have been obtained if there was a possibility of capital punishment.

In reply to elsewhere:

As I said above, I'm not for the death penalty, life as in actual life inside in segregation works for me. 

In reply to Dax H:

It's an interesting one, in an unguarded and tongue in cheek moment not long after passing my course and cutting down trees, I cheerily (and none seriously) said to my small nephew 'If you ever need a chainsaw waving at anybody, come and speak to me', so I entirely get the protective 'How dare they?' element about people doing things to children, but in the back of my mind, I have the emerging science which suggests that we plausibly don't have freewill, It appears to be that our brains have decided when we're going to do a moment before we consciously think 'I'm going to do X', which raises all sorts of questions about how much we're in charge of our own destinies.

Definitely keep them away from children for the rest of their lives, but to what degree suffering should be a part of the justice system, I think might need to be reexamined as we learn more about how much agency we have in deciding what we do, in that the less we turn out to have, the smaller a part of the justice system 'making things grim' it could seem fair to have as an element of things. I never have waved a chainsaw at anybody for my neices and nephew, yet.

In reply to Timmd:

How much agency we all have is an interesting philosophical debate in itself and I'd suggest it's less than we think. By trial and error we eventually get comfortable with our decision making processes and react with outrage at the bad and sometimes catastrophic decisions of others; which is where I was alluding to the notion of vanity being a component of vengeance in an earlier post.

In reply to broken spectre:

Here it is, re our brains deciding before we're aware of thinking about deciding. I find that it raises all kinds of questions about the criminal justice system. A brother pointed out that there's an equal lack of freewill in the decisions taken on what should happen to criminals too, which I find somewhat thought provoking and unsettling, our (plausible) lack of freewill potentially impacts upon all aspects of being human.

''The decision studied was a simple choice of whether or not to push a button with one’s left or right hand. Participants were free to make the decision whenever they wanted, but they had to indicate at what point they made the decision in their mind. By observing micropatterns of brain activity, the researchers were able to predict the subjects’ choices before they indicated knowing the choices themselves. “Your decisions are strongly prepared by the brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done,” says Haynes. This unprecedented prediction of a free decision raises profound questions about the nature of free will and conscious choice.''

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/unconscious-branding/202012/our-bra....

In reply to Timmd:

This has moved into other philosophical realms now but I have never read or thought anything to suggest that capital punishment is ever justifiable. The ethical vacuum possessed by anyone who does think that can only be a product of a lack of understanding, education or they are simply delusional. 

In reply to pencilled in:

Apart from the executing the wrong person problem, I've always thought that capital punishment has no place in a civilised society "surely we can do better than that". And if we can't, what does that say about us.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I would be very surprised if anyone here thought differently. 

In reply to Michael Hood:

It just strikes me that it isn't logical, if we plausibly don't have freewill (our brains deciding before we consciously decide points towards that), that it makes as much sense as killing animals for doing X behaviour.

In reply to Timmd:

But are one's pre-conscious decisions influenced by their previous conscious thoughts? Presumably it's quite rare for a well-balanced person to go on a random killing spree? Presumably many of these people with troubled thoughts but otherwise not psychotic would have been cognisant of their thought tendencies sometime beforehand and could have sought help? 

I know that if you offer me a beer, I will nearly certainly take you up on the offer. The proximate cause might be lower-level decision-making than conscious thought - but ultimately it's because I like beer and I have very little impulse control. If I didn't like beer or put much weight on the last time I said "I'm never drinking again", I probably would decline.

In reply to broken spectre:

My overall viewpoint on this is that the purpose of justice should be oriented solely towards rehabilitation and trying to turn people into engaged and productive members of society, or to protect the public where this isn't possible. Punishment beyond that shouldn't really come into it. Punitive punishment doesn't work with kids, so why would adults be any different?

It's a complex subject with no right answer - but I fear to think how many people have been criminalised for life through serving a custodial sentence for a relatively minor crime in the grand scheme of things.

In reply to tehmarks:

....but what causes us/you/one to make the preceding decisions? If it's the brain deciding, before we consciously have, then whatever thoughts we feel as if we're consciously having, the underpinning may be/is still the same lack of freewill and agency - from the brain deciding before we're conscious we have done.

The sense of freewill may just be a construct which has developed through evolution to acompany our sense of self awareness and of our own lifespan (and demise), so that existence is navigable.

In reply to Timmd:

If you haven't already, you'll end up going down the pre-deterministic universe rabbit hole.

It doesn't go anywhere.

[after writing that trite little phrase, I realised that on so many levels, in the current subject area, it was in fact a deep philosophical statement, and now if I'm not careful, I'm going to disappear up my own a**ehole 🤣]

In reply to pencilled in:

You may be surprised if you read the entire thread and examine the voting on some of the pro capital punishment comments?

In reply to Lankyman:

Blimey! Weird.

Myra Hindley, universally understood to be incapable of remorse is an equally challenging case to address to John Venables.  I suspect we owe it to ourselves to continue to point out the fatal flaws in capital punishment as a solution. That’s all we can do really. 

In reply to Michael Hood:

I hadn't thought that.

In reply to pencilled in:

I never cease to marvel at the ability of some to take such firm, absolute positions on complex issues. Bravo, I guess.

FWIW I remain opposed to ritual killing and I remain to be convinced 'death penalties' serve any other significant function.

Jk

In reply to Timmd:

Alternatively, you have made a conscious choice, but there is a lag between that choice being made and detected by the instrumentation and you being able to articulate that choice to the observer.

For example, you're driving, an on coming car suddenly swerves into your lane and you manage to avoid it by swerving yourself.

You could argue you haven't exercised free will in that scenario and it was 'instinctive'. If that were the case you'd have curled into a ball to try and proctect yourself. In reality you've exercised the decisions making process and carried out a sequence of precise movements that you've learned to do. However it's all been processed so quickly that some people would claim 'that an angel grabbed the wheel before I could react' or similar nonsense.

Which makes "This unprecedented prediction of a free decision raises profound questions about the nature of free will and conscious choice.'' might be the modern equivalent of "the Devil made him do it". Which doesn't add much to the debate.

In reply to Ridge:

It could add a lot to how we understand why people do what we term 'evil' acts, and lead to new ethical considerations on how criminals and anti social people are treated, I think, while it's not as inherent as something from birth, the proportion of prisoners which traumatic brain injuries is proportionally higher than the general population, it's one potential instance of freewill being questionable (compared to their lifepaths without the brain injury, when things like impluse control can be affected). 

It either doesn't add much, or it opens up new considerations and ethical questions we currently don't consider, about treatment which targets the brain, and the nature of any consent for that, where it's something inherent from birth. 

In reply to Ridge:

Why should something being instinctive in a situation of survival mean that one curls up into a ball - couldn't the response of individuals be specific to them, with different people reacting differently (as people seem to)? 

That some people put it down to angels and similar, suggests that they don't know how they managed to react, which almost hints at it not being an altogether conscious response, but something more instinctive, otherwise they'd know how they managed to think about reacting? 

If a jar falls from a shelf when I open a cupboad, my hand reaches out before I've thought about it, or that's the perception I have of the experience, which strikes me as interesting when I read about the brain having made a decision moments before the individual is conscious of it.

NB: I'm exploring things, rather than arguing for something I definitely believe to be true.