1 hour ago, Iz 🌟 said:

Similar strategy to Pochin introducing the burqa topic and Yusuf distancing himself from it, except Farage is doing the doublethink all by himself. It's to get these long-dead or fringe right-wing ideas their time in the debate mainstream in an 'acceptable fashion' to maintain their public support for now. They can do this because newspapers are letting them set the agenda and they have the confidence to try to set public opinion in a certain direction, something completely lacking on the UK centre and left.

If we get to a point where public opinion on the death penalty swings to a majority in favour, they'd happily push it through if they got the opportunity. Of course we must hope that does not happen, but that is certainly an outcome possible should their horrific rhetoric take hold more than it has already.

Yeh well since Corbyn was LOTO in the Uk!

41 minutes ago, Liam Sota said:

Death penalty isn’t a fringe idea really. People are always very open on that issue once you get past the first part. If you say do you support the death penalty it’s probably more saying no. Then if you say do you support the death penalty for child rapists suddenly the majority support it. So people just don’t understand the question.

The only country that uses it on our continent is Belarus. It's pretty fringe.

17 minutes ago, Iz 🌟 said:

I was characterising it as 'long-dead', not 'fringe' in terms of public opinion, though thankfully it's still fringe among serious political thinkers.

Precisely because of where it is with public opinion it's a debate that should never be reopened in the political sphere, as it's possibly the number one issue on how wrong it would be to enact relative to the amount of public support it sadly enjoys and therefore the best example to my mind of why political policy should not always follow public opinion.

The state should not have the power to execute people, no matter what they have done and to an extent societies that still have it I consider to still have some element of barbarism. Yet when asked the natural default is to the most punishing option for people in our somewhat crime-fascinated society. Which is to say I see why it's relatively popular, but those studies are done on a hypothetical with no chance of it being introduced. Much like Brexit, it's something that would make our society worse if introduced as a serious issue.

It would be a lot better if the home office could sort out the problem with the prisons being full and murder meaning 13 years only nowadays.

8 minutes ago, Harve said:

The only country that uses it on our continent is Belarus. It's pretty fringe.

I’m talking as a view among people. The only thing I could find with a recent date was this and even that more support than oppose

It’s always been like that from what I’ve known too. It’s a very taboo topic among the political class so to speak but I don’t think it’s as closed off as suggested it’s just an almost pointless thing to entertain if there’s no real possibility of anything coming to fruition but if it was a genuine possibility I’m sure the opinion among most groups would be pretty split

32 minutes ago, Iz 🌟 said:

I was characterising it as 'long-dead', not 'fringe' in terms of public opinion, though thankfully it's still fringe among serious political thinkers.

Precisely because of where it is with public opinion it's a debate that should never be reopened in the political sphere, as it's possibly the number one issue on how wrong it would be to enact relative to the amount of public support it sadly enjoys and therefore the best example to my mind of why political policy should not always follow public opinion.

The state should not have the power to execute people, no matter what they have done and to an extent societies that still have it I consider to still have some element of barbarism. Yet when asked the natural default is to the most punishing option for people in our somewhat crime-fascinated society. Which is to say I see why it's relatively popular, but those studies are done on a hypothetical with no chance of it being introduced. Much like Brexit, it's something that would make our society worse if introduced as a serious issue.

Sounds a bit elitist really.

The argument about the state shouldn’t ever have that power is an amusing one to me because the state already has the power to lock you up for life. For a lot of people that would be hell on earth and many commit suicide or it ends up being a death sentence for them. So really what’s the difference?

Ultimately a justice system should deliver justice especially to the victim and the victims families and what certain people consider barbaric shouldn’t be in the way of that as I consider it barbaric people who have committed the most heinous crimes on earth can chill on taxpayers dime eating crisps and chocolate in the same place someone who made some mean tweets is. Can you imagine while their victims families suffer everyday they’re laughing and playing pool and watching TV and this is considered enlightened? Doesn’t sit right with many people.

Of course it’d need the highest bar possible and need to be irrefutable beyond all doubt but if so and it’s what the victim or victims family want why would it be a problem? It’s an odd stance especially when you say “no matter what they’ve done” that’s very shut off. I really don’t see much difference in locking someone up for 80 years and the death penalty? Is it a mercy thing? If it is why should you have that say over victims families? If it’s not I don’t know what it is. I’ve spoke about it with people many times and never once really heard a good argument against it.

17 minutes ago, Steve201 said:

It would be a lot better if the home office could sort out the problem with the prisons being full and murder meaning 13 years only nowadays.

And why do you think that is? Too many people. They have to make shorter and shorter sentences. Then even the long ones they do 40/50%. Is this justice for victims? Of course not and that’s what a justice system should be. You can’t rehabilitate some people and some crimes are undeserving of rehabilitation so… that’s where this possibility comes in. It’d be a small number for sure but look at the Southport killer. Clearly beyond rehabilitation and then in prison he almost killed a prison officer. What is the point in taxpayers paying for this guy to live behind bars to 80? He’s clearly never getting out so what’s the argument against it? Is there a good one?

I Belive in justice but not the death penalty!

As I'm sure more people will be along to tell you soon if they haven't by the time I've finished typing this, executing people is generally more expensive than letting them live and this is a constant issue in the states of America where it is legal. Not that it should be about cost. Nor about for 'x' crime as once it's there, then the debate becomes even more fractured over which crimes deserve it.

If it's elitist to have a strong opinion that the state doesn't execute, fuck me I'm elitist. You know you are allowed to disagree with the Great British Public, right? That is a thing that is possible. It's not even a majority of the public that I'm against on this issue anyway. A tolerant, liberal, modern society should have a rehabilitative justice system and if it has one that works then we are all better off for it. The small minority that can't be rehabilitated can be removed from society in a humane fashion, as judges decree, while sympathies are with victims, justice shouldn't be applied according to their wishes only.

Honestly, many sentences are too long already. For criminals with hope of reintegrating into society, even the act of sending them to prison tends to drive them towards crime in the future and so much more needs to be done to support them on release so that they do not reoffend. One of the worst outcomes of a Reform government might just be that it would give into the impulses of their voters and introduce draconian punishments for crimes that do not deserve it, creating a criminal underclass with no hope of becoming part of normal society again.

Honestly law and justice is one issue where the attitudes of certain sections of the public tend to radicalise me most in the other direction. Norway-style prisons for all and hop to it, Starmer ministry.

So Reform are going to give everyone tax breaks, bring back capital punishments, totally reform the NHS, ban abortion and make sure the pensioners keep all their benefits.

This lot are in absolute cloud cuckoo land.

There have been many crimes that were thought to have been irrefutable and beyond proof... new evidence came to light and they had just spent decades in prison for crimes they were completely innocent of, and they could've been killed otherwise, look at Peter Sullivan recently, Derek Bentley as well. There's no way around it, death is absolute, a justice system in which there's a chance that they kill an innocent person is not a fair justice system.

Also, it's been vastly disproven as a deterrant, so there's no feasible way it works, it's not exaggeration to say almost all countries with it still in use are regularly using it in corrupt, discriminatory and political means.

I would say being locked up in hope of rehabilitation or wasting away alone slowly over time as punishment for a heinous act is much more effective than giving them either an easy way out or no hope of reforming. Also, the victim's families are not judges and don't have the final say, that's not how the justice system works.

Anyway, it's not coming back so moot discussion, just clickbait nonsense as per.

20 minutes ago, Chez Wombat said:

There have been many crimes that were thought to have been irrefutable and beyond proof... new evidence came to light and they had just spent decades in prison for crimes they were completely innocent of, and they could've been killed otherwise, look at Peter Sullivan recently, Derek Bentley as well. There's no way around it, death is absolute, a justice system in which there's a chance that they kill an innocent person is not a fair justice system.

Also, it's been vastly disproven as a deterrant, so there's no feasible way it works, it's not exaggeration to say almost all countries with it still in use are regularly using it in corrupt, discriminatory and political means.

I would say being locked up in hope of rehabilitation or wasting away alone slowly over time as punishment for a heinous act is much more effective than giving them either an easy way out or no hope of reforming. Also, the victim's families are not judges and don't have the final say, that's not how the justice system works.

Anyway, it's not coming back so moot discussion, just clickbait nonsense as per.

Look at Peter Sullivan? He spent 40 odd years in prison. His life was ruined. It’s such a silly argument to claim that is a great case against the death penalty. 1st of all it was years ago. It wasn’t remotely irrefutable it was mostly a circumstantial case.

But look at the case. The state essentially took 40 years of his life. That’s a death sentence. Some people said they’d rather have died than have to deal with the fact your life was taken away and dwell on that for 40 years.

We have tons of people locked up for crimes they didn’t do but if they slowly rot away or go through hell behind bars with the worst people on the planet that’s okay. These are such bad arguments. The justice system should not make mistakes but you can have different tiers. If the argument is an innocent person can be killed then forget it. Is the Southport killer possibly innocent? No. We know he did it. It’s irrefutable through DNA. Witnesses and all key evidence. So should he get the death penalty? And of course people will find a way to say no but there is no good reason. Not one. The victims families would probably feel better and like they can move on better not having to hear he’s attacked someone or done something else inside too.

You would say based on what? Have you ever spoken to killers or child rapists?

If you look at Axel. He had no life or contact or friends or anything. He sat at home 24/7 obsessed with violence. His life is not much different now. He literally committed the most heinous crimes imaginable and we have to pay for his meals while the victims families probably wish he was dead but we cannot give him the death penalty because? It’d upset serious political thinkers? Give me a break.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Europe

Clearly it’s supported by a lot of people so I don’t see why it’s click bait. Ultimately the more people with misplaced morals influence society with often pretentious outlooks this stuff grows because right now we have a justice system that is devoid of justice in many circumstances especially for victims and their families

Edited June 10Jun 10 by Liam Sota

Peter Sullivan was convicted at a time when the death penalty was abolished in the UK for murder, had it not been, he could've been killed for a crime he didn't commit. Yes, it took a lot of his life but at least he has lived to see justice happen and have another chance. Wrongful convictions happen so frequently, a fair justice system should make sure that in that event, that they can live to see it.

You haven't responded to any of the points about deterrance, cost or how easily it's abused in countries today, so you're clearly just arguing based on how you feel about it and this one glaring example, to which I again say, in my view, he doesn't deserve the easy way out of a quick death, let him rot away slowly, and it's pointless trying to assume that that's not what the families want let alone use them as an argument as you are not one of them.

This is the strategy that I have the most deep concern over, it's essentially the one adopted by Cambridge Analytica in the 2016 referendum where you can quite effectively adapt your message in order to play to all crowds, taking whatever opinion you know will play the most favourably with a particular slice of the electorate even if it would really put off another.

Reform are playing on the apathy that grows stronger in the political vacuum that we find ourselves in. They need to be called out for what they are: grifters.

As for the death penalty, I don't believe that there is a strong consensus for it here in the UK - indeed it's a fairly polarised discussion, especially by those who have been the victims of or impacted by horrific crimes, clearly. However, I feel incredibly strongly opposed to it and furthermore feel that there is no place in a civilised society for it. Tell me why has Ian Huntley tried to take his own life many times? Could it be that rather than giving in to our very basic and reactionary instincts of revenge, that the ultimate justice is having to live with what you've done for the rest of your life.

Slightly off topic but the discussion about prison made me think of a really interesting talk from someone who heads up a charity whose purpose is going into prisons. They get ADHD diagnoses for those who have it, get them the medication and then continue to support them after that including after they’ve been released.

She finds firstly that a staggering proportion of prisoners have ADHD (like 70-80%) and secondly that the medication is transformative for most of

these (usually) young men. It calms them right down and stops whatever triggers them to offend.

I guess there are 3 main objectives of prison:

1) Rehabilitation

2) Restraint - stopping someone committing further crimes by locking them away

3) Punishment - like a humane but drawn out version of torture

I think 1) surely has to be the aim in pretty much all cases. It’s morally the best of the 3 aims and it saves the taxpayer a huge amount in the long run. If you’re only doing 2 or 3 really that has a huge cost for everyone, both human and financial. And that’s when you start having the debate about capital punishment - well why do we bother if nobody is really getting anything back from this resource spend?

Are any criminals really so depraved that 1 is impossible? Not sure. But I think the main focus should be putting more into that.