1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

But most criminals vote left, so we can't be killing them.

Evidence or source please.

Edited June 22Jun 22 by josephbloggs

8 hours ago, josephbloggs said:

Evidence or source please.

Right after you show you evidence or source for: "Well the evidence clearly shows that the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever."

Standing by.

11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Right after you show you evidence or source for: "Well the evidence clearly shows that the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever."

Standing by.

Google/AI is your friend.

"Studies consistently show no correlation between capital punishment and lower murder rates." Plenty of sources to read.

6 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Google/AI is your friend.

"Studies consistently show no correlation between capital punishment and lower murder rates." Plenty of sources to read.

What "studies", and by who?

In any event, the claim was that "...the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever.".

Again, if speeding were punishable by death, would fewer people speed?

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What "studies", and by who?

In any event, the claim was that "...the death penalty is no deterrent whatsoever.".

Again, if speeding were punishable by death, would fewer people speed?

The quote you keep repeating from JBloggs was a direct reply to someone specifically talking about murder ("would make them think twice before killing someone").

In that context, comparing murder to speeding is 'ridiculous'. Murder already carries extremely severe penalties if the offender is caught. JBloggs is not arguing against the death penalty being able to deter behaviour in general, but whether it deters murder more effectively than life imprisonment (or other lengthy sentences).

I have little doubt that execution for speeding would reduce speeding overnight, just as a £500,000 fine or ten years' hard labour would. So what? That's nothing to do with what is being discussed. There have been many studies on capital punishment and deterrence. Some have found evidence of a deterrent effect, some have found no effect, and some have even suggested a possible increase in murder rates (!). However, the most common conclusion is that the evidence for a deterrent effect, compared with life imprisonment, is weak, mixed or at best unproven. For that reason, I agree it may be too categorical to claim there is absolutely no deterrent effect whatsoever. However, the evidence does not appear strong enough to justify confidently dismissing it either.

I would argue JBloggs may have been over-confident on his assertion, but it is clearly not 'ridiculous'.

2 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

The quote you keep repeating from JBloggs was a direct reply to someone specifically talking about murder ("would make them think twice before killing someone").

In that context, comparing murder to speeding is 'ridiculous'. Murder already carries extremely severe penalties if the offender is caught. JBloggs is not arguing against the death penalty being able to deter behaviour in general, but whether it deters murder more effectively than life imprisonment (or other lengthy sentences).

I have little doubt that execution for speeding would reduce speeding overnight, just as a £500,000 fine or ten years' hard labour would. So what? That's nothing to do with what is being discussed. There have been many studies on capital punishment and deterrence. Some have found evidence of a deterrent effect, some have found no effect, and some have even suggested a possible increase in murder rates (!). However, the most common conclusion is that the evidence for a deterrent effect, compared with life imprisonment, is weak, mixed or at best unproven. For that reason, I agree it may be too categorical to claim there is absolutely no deterrent effect whatsoever. However, the evidence does not appear strong enough to justify confidently dismissing it either.

I would argue JBloggs may have been over-confident on his assertion, but it is clearly not 'ridiculous'.

We seem to agree that a stronger punishment is more of a deterrent than a weaker punishment, is that correct?

And if that is correct, the only question is whether or not death is a stronger punishment than prison, is this also correct?

Because if a stronger punishment is more of a deterrent than a weaker punishment, and if death is a stronger punishment than prison, then it follows that death is a stronger deterrent than prison, is this not correct as well?

Virtually everyone on death row is fighting to stay alive in prison.

In the United States:

Almost half of murders are not prosecuted

Less than 1% of convicted murderers receive the death penalty

Less than 1 out of 5 convicted murderers that death penalty is actually executed

So, if my math is correct, if you murder someone in the US, you have less than a 1 in 1,000 chance of being executed for it. How will any "study" show this to be effective?

In any event, as I have said all along, I am against the death penalty, but the idea that it is not a deterrent is ridiculous.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

We seem to agree that a stronger punishment is more of a deterrent than a weaker punishment, is that correct?

And if that is correct, the only question is whether or not death is a stronger punishment than prison, is this also correct?

Because if a stronger punishment is more of a deterrent than a weaker punishment, and if death is a stronger punishment than prison, then it follows that death is a stronger deterrent than prison, is this not correct as well?

Virtually everyone on death row is fighting to stay alive in prison.

In the United States:

Almost half of murders are not prosecuted

Less than 1% of convicted murderers receive the death penalty

Less than 1 out of 5 convicted murderers that death penalty is actually executed

So, if my math is correct, if you murder someone in the US, you have less than a 1 in 1,000 chance of being executed for it. How will any "study" show this to be effective?

In any event, as I have said all along, I am against the death penalty, but the idea that it is not a deterrent is ridiculous.

I am not agreeing with you at all - I feel like you haven't read my previous reply fully. I don't agree with your logic of stronger punishment = stronger deterrent. I explained that above with regard to your absurd example of speeding. We are clearly discussing murder - and life imprisonment vs the death penalty. Your basing your entire argument on an assumption, and at the same time dismissing decades of study.

You make an interesting point in the possible paucity of studies, though if executions are so rare that only 1 in 1000 murderers are executed, why should we assume that reintroducing the death penalty to Great Britain would have any meaningful effect on murder rates? Also, regarding death row, what people do after being caught and convicted is not a reflection of what they did before committing the crime. I mean, all of those people on death row committed their crimes under threat of the death penalty. It did not deter a single one of them.

Aside from that, there are actually no shortage of studies. They don't just cover executions but states with and without the death penalty, countries before and after abolition, changes in murder rates over decades. The problem isn't a lack of studies, it's the lack of any meaningful evidence that the death penalty is a stronger deterrent than life imprisonment.

You can disagree with them. To dismiss them as ridiculous is in itself ridiculous.

On 6/19/2026 at 3:08 PM, Purdey said:

The death penalty is an emotive subject. People would assume that anyone who is given the death penalty really did it.

If you know the reason the death penalty was ended in the UK you will know that the person who actually shot a policeman in Croydon was not executed because he was a minor and walked free after a few years. Instead, his friend, who was on the scene but killed no one, was hung because he was not a minor.

In the USA making a mistake had never affected the death penalty.

George Spencer (c. 1600 – April 8, 1642) was the second person in history to be executed in Connecticut. He was charged with bestiality and the only evidence was a pig that people claimed was his child. It's impossible to have a child with an animal.

Tommy Lee Walker: Executed in Texas in 1956 for murder. Decades later, a court reviewing the case declared him innocent after discovering the state withheld crucial exculpatory evidence and coerced witnesses. George Stinney Jr.: Executed in South Carolina in 1944. At age 14, he was the youngest person executed in the U.S. in the 20th century. A judge vacated his conviction in 2014, ruling that his confession was coerced and his trial fundamentally flawed.Carlos DeLuna: Executed by lethal injection in Texas in 1989 for a convenience store murder. Exhaustive post-conviction investigations later revealed he was innocent and that a known local criminal, Carlos Hernandez, committed the murder.

Evans.William Jackson Marion: Executed by hanging in Nebraska in 1887. He was put to death for the murder of his friend John Cameron. Four years later, Cameron was discovered alive and well, having left town to avoid personal disputes.

Whatever someone says about justice, the killing of a person is wrong and mistakes happen.

Ever heard of DNA? Using it no chance of getting the wrong person

2 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

I am not agreeing with you at all - I feel like you haven't read my previous reply fully. I don't agree with your logic of stronger punishment = stronger deterrent. I explained that above with regard to your absurd example of speeding. We are clearly discussing murder - and life imprisonment vs the death penalty. Your basing your entire argument on an assumption, and at the same time dismissing decades of study.

You make an interesting point in the possible paucity of studies, though if executions are so rare that only 1 in 1000 murderers are executed, why should we assume that reintroducing the death penalty to Great Britain would have any meaningful effect on murder rates? Also, regarding death row, what people do after being caught and convicted is not a reflection of what they did before committing the crime. I mean, all of those people on death row committed their crimes under threat of the death penalty. It did not deter a single one of them.

Aside from that, there are actually no shortage of studies. They don't just cover executions but states with and without the death penalty, countries before and after abolition, changes in murder rates over decades. The problem isn't a lack of studies, it's the lack of any meaningful evidence that the death penalty is a stronger deterrent than life imprisonment.

You can disagree with them. To dismiss them as ridiculous is in itself ridiculous.

So, you do not agree that harsher punishment is a greater deterrent than milder punishment, correct? So why life in prison, why not five years?

In any event, it is not my position that reintroducing the death penalty to Great Briton would have any meaningful effect on murder rates. Did you miss the part where I said that I am against the death penalty?

For the death penalty to work as a deterrent, the odds have to be much greater that it will actually be implemented. If 50% of the time murderers were put to death within a year or two, do you not agree there would be significantly fewer murders?

In the US, as it stands now, at the odds are only 4 in 10 you will even be prosecuted.

Please post a link to what you think is a solid study.

In most of the seriouse cases photoguy you don't need DNA such as these 2 monsters that abused and murdered a 15 month old child or the Southport killer. Some believe they should be tried to be Rehabilitated or given counselling? why they can never be freed back into society, so thousands of pounds and time will be spent on them. In my opinion if the courts are not willing to Execute these people then Prison justice is the answer.

Its not a deterant Yellowtail thats why there are so many murders, in the UK you don't even get a life sentance if your a good boy your out in 10-12 years, if you murder someone in your early 20s your out before your 40. The victims family carry the life sentance, living all there life seeing there family murderer is out getting a second chance of life.

Edited June 23Jun 23 by BarraMarra

8 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Its not a deterant Yellowtail thats why there are so many murders, in the UK you don't even get a life sentance if your a good boy your out in 10-12 years, if you murder someone in your early 20s your out before your 40. The victims family carry the life sentance, living all there life seeing there family murderer is out getting a second chance of life.

And why should murderers get to go on living? The victim is dead, the friends and families of the victims suffer for life, and (at least in the US) the time served is ~17 years.

And as I said: In the United States:

• Almost half of murders are not prosecuted

• Less than 1% of convicted murderers receive the death penalty

• Less than 1 out of 5 convicted murderers that death penalty is actually executed

• So, if my math is correct, if you murder someone in the US, you have less than a 1 in 1,000 chance of being executed for it.

I started this thread looking again at bringing back the Death Penalty for seriouse cases such as Child killers, Terroist's , and serial killers. This is what i'm aiming at. These Murderers have no thoughts for the victims, So justice for these Monsters must be swift as they just take up space in Prison and drain tax payers money, and im pretty certain some parents won't be seeing justice is served when there child killer is put behind bars, and i believe most parents would help executing them given the chance. I will Reiterate the death sentance should be only carried out on these people.

On 6/19/2026 at 7:54 AM, BarraMarra said:

Should the Death Penalty be Re- intoduced back for the most seriouse crimes. Yesterday's sentance of two men has brought this back into the limelight. Two gay men managed to adopt an toddler and within 4 Months the poor little boy was dead. The details of what these 2 Evil beasts did to this infant are to horrible for me to explain into detail lets just say he died from deliberatly loss of breathing either by hand clamped over his air passage or an abject forced into his mouth, he had over 40 injuries including sexual abuse. He was just 15 Months old when he died. Passing sentance the main beast Jaimie Varley and his gay lover John Mcgowen showed no emotion as sentances were handed down. Varley was sentanced to life indefinatly so will never be paroled his partner got 25 yrs. In a case like this these two should be given the lethal injection. However they will now have targets on there backs and as soon as its possible they will be killed in Prison.

100%.
Why should taxpayers pay to sustain murderers etc. for decades until natural death?
Better to kill the wretched.

An eye for an eye.

Needs cast iron evidence though - esp if a case is reliant on the testimony of women.

Most social ills can be cured by death.
Can't stop being a huge nuisance? Cure by bullet.

Can't stop abusing kids? Get murdered.

Can't stop taking drugs and theiving? Catch a bullet in the head - if you can survive you can walk free.
Can't stop bitching and moaning and making others' lives miserable? Yep, you guessed it.

Another thing we could do is remove all these stupid laws preventing vigilanteism.
The 'but muh humna rights' crew are running amok and also need culling imho.

Workhouses for the terminally lazy / useless eaters would also be a great idea.

Let's Do It!

Edited June 23Jun 23 by Tourist2

The Death Penalty will never be Reintroduced in the UK as that is a Red Card for any future EU membership

The European Union unconditionally opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, viewing it as a violation of the right to life and human dignity. Capital punishment is legally banned across all 27 EU member states, and its abolition is a strict prerequisite for joining both the EU and the Council of Europe

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-statement-death-penalty_en

36 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, you do not agree that harsher punishment is a greater deterrent than milder punishment, correct? So why life in prison, why not five years?

I do not know if you are being intentionally obtuse or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We are talking about punishment for murder, specifically whether the death penalty is a deterrent compared to life imprisonment. You keep changing that into a different question: whether harsher punishments are generally more of a deterrent than milder punishments.

That's not the same argument.

If your argument is simply that five years is less of a deterrent than life imprisonment, I doubt many would disagree. The actual question is whether executing murderers reduces murder more effectively than imprisoning them for life. That is the point that has been studied extensively, and the point on which the evidence remains disputed.

If you seriously cannot find the plethora of studies to read in this area then frankly you are debating in bad faith. You will find, if you look, a large body of work that suggests for serious crimes the probability of getting caught is more of a deterrent than punishment. I'd suggest then that your quoted odds regarding possibility of prosecution of 4 in 10 is more significant (though I have no idea if you just made that up or not). Certainly, many criminals often think they will get away with it; most pre-meditated murders often have a plan exactly for this, hence the ever expanding true crime section on Netlfix. Other murders, committed in rage or other moments of lost control, simply will be unaffected by any deterrence.

By the way Yellowtail, I am not a 'leftist' and have no ideological hat in the ring. I base my beliefs on the evidence, or lack thereof. I am open to changing my mind [shock:horror] if new evidence comes to light. I have yet to see any that convinces me that the death penalty is more of a deterrent than life imprisonment.

BarraMarra makes some fair points above, yet it is all based on emotion, albeit understandably so in some of the extreme cases quoted. Yet, I read a lot of derogatory words on here for places in the world where we often hear about emotive justice being carried out - lynchings, stonings, honour killings etc. I believe emotion should be removed from law, though that is my opinion and might place me in the minority. I also believe there is not one legal system in the world which has not made mistakes - be they unintentional, negligent or maliciously led, and every one of those legal systems will make mistakes again.

Furthermore, I do think that if you were to impose an irreversible sentence such as death, and given mistakes will be made, you must offer the accused every legal avenue to prove their innocence. In developed countries, that is often as costly as keeping someone in prison for life. [I'd agree that we should look at life sentences meaning life sentences, but that's a different debate entirely.]

Finally, for me, I think a life sentence is as harsh a punishment as death - that's just my opinion. Others will have a different opinion. That's fine, indeed it's healthy. It's a shame some on here don't want proper discussion or for others to voice their opinions, just because they are different. [For clarity the last paragraph is not aimed at you Yellowtail]

15 minutes ago, Tourist2 said:

100%.
Why should taxpayers pay to sustain murderers etc. for decades until natural death?
Better to kill the wretched.

An eye for an eye.

Needs cast iron evidence though - esp if a case is reliant on the testimony of women.

Most social ills can be cured by death.
Can't stop being a huge nuisance? Cure by bullet.

Can't stop abusing kids? Get murdered.

Can't stop taking drugs and theiving? Catch a bullet in the head - if you can survive you can walk free.
Can't stop bitching and moaning and making others' lives miserable? Yep, you guessed it.

Another thing we could do is remove all these stupid laws preventing vigilanteism.
The 'but muh humna rights' crew are running amok and also need culling imho.

Workhouses for the terminally lazy / useless eaters would also be a great idea.

Let's Do It!

Here we go again deflecting, who cares about what other European country's do, im more interested in my Countrys laws. This is exactly why we voted to leave Europe or we should have left fully but our Government want to go against what we voted for. We should rule our own Country from the English Parliment not from Brussels. This post was directed at vinny41 not Tourist2.

16 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

The Death Penalty will never be Reintroduced in the UK as that is a Red Card for any future EU membership

The European Union unconditionally opposes the death penalty in all circumstances, viewing it as a violation of the right to life and human dignity. Capital punishment is legally banned across all 27 EU member states, and its abolition is a strict prerequisite for joining both the EU and the Council of Europe

https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/eu-statement-death-penalty_en

Edited June 23Jun 23 by BarraMarra

6 minutes ago, Pickwick said:

I do not know if you are being intentionally obtuse or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. We are talking about punishment for murder, specifically whether the death penalty is a deterrent compared to life imprisonment. You keep changing that into a different question: whether harsher punishments are generally more of a deterrent than milder punishments.

That's not the same argument.

If your argument is simply that five years is less of a deterrent than life imprisonment, I doubt many would disagree. The actual question is whether executing murderers reduces murder more effectively than imprisoning them for life. That is the point that has been studied extensively, and the point on which the evidence remains disputed.

If you seriously cannot find the plethora of studies to read in this area then frankly you are debating in bad faith. You will find, if you look, a large body of work that suggests for serious crimes the probability of getting caught is more of a deterrent than punishment. I'd suggest then that your quoted odds regarding possibility of prosecution of 4 in 10 is more significant (though I have no idea if you just made that up or not). Certainly, many criminals often think they will get away with it; most pre-meditated murders often have a plan exactly for this, hence the ever expanding true crime section on Netlfix. Other murders, committed in rage or other moments of lost control, simply will be unaffected by any deterrence.

By the way Yellowtail, I am not a 'leftist' and have no ideological hat in the ring. I base my beliefs on the evidence, or lack thereof. I am open to changing my mind [shock:horror] if new evidence comes to light. I have yet to see any that convinces me that the death penalty is more of a deterrent than life imprisonment.

BarraMarra makes some fair points above, yet it is all based on emotion, albeit understandably so in some of the extreme cases quoted. Yet, I read a lot of derogatory words on here for places in the world where we often hear about emotive justice being carried out - lynchings, stonings, honour killings etc. I believe emotion should be removed from law, though that is my opinion and might place me in the minority. I also believe there is not one legal system in the world which has not made mistakes - be they unintentional, negligent or maliciously led, and every one of those legal systems will make mistakes again.

Furthermore, I do think that if you were to impose an irreversible sentence such as death, and given mistakes will be made, you must offer the accused every legal avenue to prove their innocence. In developed countries, that is often as costly as keeping someone in prison for life. [I'd agree that we should look at life sentences meaning life sentences, but that's a different debate entirely.]

Finally, for me, I think a life sentence is as harsh a punishment as death - that's just my opinion. Others will have a different opinion. That's fine, indeed it's healthy. It's a shame some on here don't want proper discussion or for others to voice their opinions, just because they are different. [For clarity the last paragraph is not aimed at you Yellowtail]

You make some good points Pickwick, in your opinion if your given a life sentance does that mean you die in prison.

7 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Its not a deterant Yellowtail thats why there are so many murders, in the UK you don't even get a life sentance if your a good boy your out in 10-12 years, if you murder someone in your early 20s your out before your 40. The victims family carry the life sentance, living all there life seeing there family murderer is out getting a second chance of life.

Or a second chance to engage in criminal activity. But let's hope prison did its job and turned around the murderer's life.

7 hours ago, Photoguy21 said:

Ever heard of DNA? Using it no chance of getting the wrong person

Yes we now use DNA to find out that the wrong person was fitted up and released after serving 17 years of a sentence. Do you know when people get compensation the state grabs some to cover "board and lodgings" for the time the person was in prison. How sick is that.

1 hour ago, Geoff914 said:

Or a second chance to engage in criminal activity. But let's hope prison did its job and turned around the murderer's life.

Some have come out Geoff after serving there life sentance to comit another murder. When they were told not to release them.

homosexual men shouldnt be allowed to adopt babies

An interesting case has arisen in the UK where a 14 yr old boy has been arrested for the Murder of a 14 yr old girl. There names have been witheld due to there age. If he murder'd this girl he will likely be sent to a young offenders institute because he cannot be sent to an open prison. No deterent to stop these happening. How do you punish a boy this age ? He will likely be free before he hits 30. Meanwhile the parents of this young girl will now go through there life not seeing there girl married , watching there girl become an adult or having Children etc.

16 hours ago, Geoff914 said:

Yes we now use DNA to find out that the wrong person was fitted up and released after serving 17 years of a sentence. Do you know when people get compensation the state grabs some to cover "board and lodgings" for the time the person was in prison. How sick is that.

Yes I do know that but it is irrelevant to say the wrong person could face the death penalty when DNA is so very effective. The testing is accurate the person conducting the tests may be deficient but that does not alter the facts.

I don't think we need DNA when the murder is sat on him stabbing him or seeing one walking into a school to kill children.

Edited June 24Jun 24 by BarraMarra

2. People bring up the issue of the cost of prison. Cost should not enter the equation in a discussion on whether the state should have a right to kill. And in the grand scheme of things it is so insignificant as to be not even a consideration. And refer back to point number 1.

What's $50K a year times a life expectancy of (let's say) 50 more years?

The short answer: More than the taxpayers should be required to pay to keep oxygen thieves alive.

Google/AI is your friend.

"Studies consistently show no correlation between capital punishment and lower murder rates." Plenty of sources to read.

How many people have murdered anyone after being hanged?

I rest my case...

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

How many people have murdered anyone after being hanged?

I rest my case...

None. But the death penalty doesn't stop people murdering others. Maybe a little reading will educate you?

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

None. But the death penalty doesn't stop people murdering others. Maybe a little reading will educate you?

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

There are so many variables between states that comparing their murder rates by whether they have the death penalty or not is a fool's errand. It's a perfect example of "figures don't lie, but liars figure".

If you look at the top murder states, there's another correlation that's probably a lot more valid. Care to guess?

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

There are so many variables between states that comparing their murder rates by whether they have the death penalty or not is a fool's errand. It's a perfect example of "figures don't lie, but liars figure".

If you look at the top murder states, there's another correlation that's probably a lot more valid. Care to guess?

You're most likely right; it's pretty much a fool's topic anyway as most people look at it through their personal ethical/religious beliefs. No, I can't guess.