Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
The death penalty
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
a) How do you decide if the crime is sufficiently heinous?
b) Guilt can never be proven 100%, and the burden of proof on the prosecution is beyond reasonable doubt.
c) You can't blame Westminster. As I have already said, Parliament are not allowed to bring back the death penalty, as it contravenes Article 2 of the ECHR, which is an absolute right, so can't be derogated from.
I hope that addresses the points that you made.
and retaining Article 2 of the EHCR is one solid reason why the UK should stay in Europe. if the country withdraws from the EU, the right wing Daily Rant readers will be clamouring for the return of the death penalty as the country will no longer be bound by that convention.
and nobody should ever have discretion over whether to lay down the death penalty - such an act would be as bad as a Roman Emperor giving the thumbs down in a Colisseum fight just because he could. we are beyond barbarism
There are a few side issues worthy of consideration
1) An admission of guilt does not mean guilt
2) If you prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty or if there is overwhelming evidence, maybe they should be killed humanely if they so choose (they choose to do it with razors and bootlaces so why not) what is being gained by keeping Ian Brady alive against his wish?
3) There seems to be an absolute view that it is wrong to take a life just because that person has previously done so, this is not necessarily wrong, and taking the life of a murderer could be considered humane, cost effective, and a comforting preventative action.
C McL
this makes things pretty clear as to the death penalty - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/187.htm
it's supplementary and successor to the other acts and conventions and specifically prohibits the death penalty under ALL circumstances, specifically read the Explanatory Report (link in top right) and read Pt 2 in the Introduction - http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Reports/Html/187.htm
clear??
I think to shoot a burglar whether running away or not (in the heat of the moment) is legitimate
becuase as yet we do not allow voluntary euthanasia.
perhaps we gain nothing by having Brady alive, but equally the law does not allow him to choose to die - so he lives.
I have no problem with voluntary euthanasia - if someone chooses to die through illness, despair, grief, guilt or whatever they whould be allowed to choose that as it's a personal choice. but that is subtly different to a death penalty imposed by law
That might just make the lawyers closing argument a little more exciting !
Allowing them to choose would be a cost effective option, dread to think how much it costs to keep a man in a maximum security prison for a year.
I think that the system would be clogged up by civil lawsuits if prisoners were given the option of choosing euthanasia. Imagine all those tort actions from family members who claimed that the prisoner never would have ended their life but for the action of the state in keeping them in such conditions that death was preferable.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
Seems to show conclusively that almost all the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates.
Well we should make it as hard for them to gain from the system as we do for the victims of crime
Stats say what you want them to say, maybe the death penalty is there because the murder rate is high
sure - it would be a difficult one to manage.
You could pay off the relatives out of the £45k per annum you'd save
Even if voluntary euthanasia was legal in the UK, I wonder if prisoners would be allowed to chose it while they were incarcerated or if it would be forfeit while they were serving their sentence - like the right to vote.
The only exception is in times when national survival is at risk, when I can kind of see it may be required for traitors and the like.
ECHR Protocol 13, Article 1 - Abolition of the death penalty.
"The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed."
But they were bombing London during the Blitz. War is totally different.
Vietnam - no
Iraq - no
Afghanistan - no
WW 2 - yes
WW1 - borderline
Protocol 6 to which you are referring was enacted on 1st November 1998.
Protocol 13 was drafted on 2002 and over rides Protocol 6.
Protocol 2, Article 2 – Prohibition of derogations
"No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention."
The bit about territories in Protocol 13 means that any signatory country can apply this to their overseas territories as well, not that they can derogate from it!