egafd.com

Since the murder of the police woman in Bradford, there have been suggestions that the UK should reintroduce the death penalty. One person suggesting this is the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Stevens. Although I am not opposed to its reintroduction, I cannot see how it can be achieved for a number of reasons. We have signed international agreements, along with virtually every other European country, that we will not carry out executions. Convictions would be more difficult to secure if juries believe the defendant will be executed. It is doubtful that where the death penalty is likely to be imposed, judges would be prepared to accept majority jury verdicts. It is extremely doubtful that the necessary legislation would ever get through the House of Commons. The certainty of life in prison with no hope of release seems to be the best deterrant.

Firstly I'm against the death penalty per se. No one, not even the state, has the right to take the life of another human being. To kill someone as some form of "punishment" isn't a punishment but an act of retaliation and vegeance.

However, what sickens me most about this latest call for the re-introduction of the death penalty is that it should ONLY be applied to people who kill policemen and women.

Why? Are they more worthy than doctors or road sweepers or anyone else who makes up society? That's certainly the message that's coming through to me... I am only of value to society if I am a policeman.

good idea but murders will still go on; and it has its down side as derek bently was wrongly hung in 1954.

Derek Bently was not wrongly hanged according to the law of the time, but of course he should not have been hanged. The shout of 'Let him have it, Chris.' could have meant give the policeman the gun. Bentley was poorly defended. Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice and also the trial judge did not conduct the case well and the Home Secretary should have commuted the sentance to life.

You are of course correct. There is no justification for re-introducing the death penalty just for the murder of police officers. However there are degrees of murder and the 1956 Homicide Act categorized these well. The death penalty is not going to comeback but those who commit murder of the worst kind should be certain they will spend the whole of their life behind bars. Those who claim that that is not a deterrant are talking nonsense.

I agree that taking a life is wrong in all cases and that includes when the police themselves kill someone.

Don't you find it strange that when someone dies in custody there's never enough evidence to convict the perpetrator - in a building full of detectives.

Only when the police stop being racist, aggressive and violent will they get my sympathy.

Life imprisonments enough in my view. Put it this way, if you`re in your mid twenties looking at life, would you rather spend the next 50 years in jail and never see freedom again or be executed and just end it all now?
And I agree with the comments about only the police seem to be worth the outcry. A guy I went to school with years ago recently got out after serving about 9 months of an 18 month sentence for stealing a car and hitting someone with it deliberatly, killing the victim. The whole town knows it was deliberate as there was shit between them because the victim worked in a bar and refused to serve the aforementioned arsehole anymore. The morons in the court decided to believe that it was just a coincidence that a few hours after the guy was dead.

We would have to come out of the EU before we could bring back the death penalty as its in the charter and i can rember back to when we did hang convicted murderers and it didnt stop people killing then so why should it now, but life should mean life not 10-12 years.

So long as life means life, that is punishment enough for murder.

Of course, you are depriving the knee-jerk vengeance freaks of their vicarious thrill at someone being executed. Good.

There needs to be a shift in balance on human rights legislation. It's used, and very well publicised, to protect those accused of commiting crimes; but way too often the rights of the victims of crime, and their families, are forgotten about. Do the Bradford blaggers have a right to a fair trial? Yes. But they don't have the right to kill. Sharon Beshenivsky was doing her job; it was cruel luck that put her in a position where she was a target for callous criminals. Her life was ended, and her children will grow up without their mother, through no fault of hers.

In my view, someone carrying a firearm while taking part in a crime should face a life sentence---whether they use it or not.

Thanks everyone. So far this is a hearteningly rational thread. Lets hope it stays that way.

Mart