3 Men Face Same-Day Execution as US Death Penalty Use Rises

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Sorry, but if you really believe that people in the UK can no longer express "unpopular or offensive opinions" you will need to show proof. Try looking at X and you'll find plenty of them!

Brewsterbudgen, that isn't what I said. I did not say that people in the UK can no longer express unpopular or offensive opinions. Obviously they can, and pointing to thousands of offensive posts on X proves nothing to the contrary.

My point was that people in Britain can, in certain circumstances, face police investigation, arrest, or prosecution over things they say or post online. The fact that many other people express controversial opinions without being prosecuted does not disprove that.

So if you want to challenge what I actually said, by all means do so, but please don't replace it with the much broader claim that nobody in Britain is free to express an unpopular opinion and then ask me to prove that.

5 hours ago, oslooskar said:

Brewsterbudgen, you have now said twice that what I wrote is “complete nonsense,” but you still haven't explained what is untrue about it. Repeating an assertion is not evidence. If you believe that freedom of speech has not been eroded in the UK, then by all means explain why and support your position.

As for relevance, you introduced the broader question of whether a country that retains capital punishment deserves to be called “civilised.” Therefore, once you make that argument, it is perfectly reasonable to point out that there are other measures by which a society might be judged civilised, including its willingness to tolerate speech that is unpopular, offensive, or objectionable.

You cannot broaden the discussion from capital punishment to the supposed civilisation of the country practising it, and then declare another measure of civilisation “off topic” simply because you don't wish to discuss it.

If you want to restrict the discussion strictly to capital punishment, that's fine. But in that case, perhaps arguments about whether the United States is a “so-called civilised country” should also be left out of it.

We all know the answer to your last sentence: the United States and any other country practicing (and succeeding) the death penalty is NOT civilised by any metric.

2 hours ago, oslooskar said:

Brewsterbudgen, that isn't what I said. I did not say that people in the UK can no longer express unpopular or offensive opinions. Obviously they can, and pointing to thousands of offensive posts on X proves nothing to the contrary.

My point was that people in Britain can, in certain circumstances, face police investigation, arrest, or prosecution over things they say or post online. The fact that many other people express controversial opinions without being prosecuted does not disprove that.

So if you want to challenge what I actually said, by all means do so, but please don't replace it with the much broader claim that nobody in Britain is free to express an unpopular opinion and then ask me to prove that.

This is what you said: "And if we are going to talk about what is becoming of supposedly “civilised” countries, I would be far more concerned about the erosion of freedom of speech in the United Kingdom. A society in which people increasingly have to worry about legal consequences for expressing unpopular or offensive opinions should give us considerably more cause for concern than the execution of people convicted of the most brutal murders."

When you find some examples of people having to worry about the legal consequences for "expressing unpopular or offensive opinions", please let us know. But maybe best to start a new thread, as this one is about the death penalty in the USA.

9 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

We all know the answer to your last sentence: the United States and any other country practicing (and succeeding) the death penalty is NOT civilised by any metric.

Your perception of what is or isn’t civilized is irrelevant given that laws are placed to maintain civility which varies from state to state in the US as well as different countries. Am not an advocate for capital punishment due to potential errors in evidence, though for certain crimes as they stand, on the absolute merit of the crime, then yes, absolutely in support of it though yet still, my perception and irrelevant to those who decide what the laws are aside from voting.

Edited August 14Aug 14 by novacova

On 8/13/2026 at 1:12 PM, oslooskar said:

That is only partially true. President Trump did end the nearly two-decade hiatus in federal executions, and 13 federal prisoners were executed during the final months of his first term. However, saying that Trump "ordered 13 executions" is highly misleading.

A president does not have the authority to convict someone of a capital crime, sentence that person to death, and then simply order the execution. Those 13 prisoners had already been convicted in federal courts and sentenced to death through the judicial process.

What the Trump administration did was resume carrying out existing , legally imposed federal death sentences after years in which no federal executions had taken place. Trump also had the constitutional authority to commute those sentences or grant clemency, but choosing not to do so is not the same thing as personally sentencing someone to death.

A far more accurate statement would be: "The Trump administration resumed federal executions and carried out 13 previously imposed federal death sentences."

Words matter, and saying that Trump “ordered 13 executions” creates a very different, and inaccurate, impression of what actually occurred.

But...he did give Federal permission for the states to execute, which they did not have before.

37 minutes ago, novacova said:

Your perception of what is or isn’t civilized is irrelevant given that laws are placed to maintain civility which varies from state to state in the US as well as different countries. Am not an advocate for capital punishment due to potential errors in evidence, though for certain crimes as they stand, on the absolute merit of the crime, then yes, absolutely in support of it though yet still, my perception and irrelevant to those who decide what the laws are aside from voting.

Not true. You could easily become part of the no death penalty movement. They advocate, letters to the editor and vigils outside each prison which executes.

Again, your perception.

14 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

You could easily become part of the no death penalty movement.

Never. Am a hardliner when it comes to upholding the law, whether agreed with or not, it’s what keeps civilization civil.

17 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

They advocate, letters to the editor and vigils outside each prison which executes.

That’s a good thing and a luxury that some countries don’t afford.

Every time this subject, which discusses going backwards in civilization, pops up I respond with my 20 reasons to see how barbaric the death penalty is.

The Guilford 4.

The Birmingham 6.

The McGuire 8.

Barry George.

All were found guilty of murder “beyond all reasonable doubt “.

Subsequently they were all found not guilty after numerous appeals but would have been murdered by UK judiciary if the death penalty were on the Statute Books

Oh, number 20: killing people is just plain wrong.

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

But...he did give Federal permission for the states to execute, which they did not have before.

No, that isn't correct. States that have the death penalty do not require the President of the United States to give them “federal permission” to carry out executions imposed under state law.

The 13 executions we were discussing were FEDERAL executions of prisoners who had been convicted of federal crimes and sentenced to death in federal courts. The Trump administration resumed federal executions after a 17-year hiatus.

State executions are a separate matter. A state with a valid death-penalty statute can carry out a state death sentence once the applicable state and federal judicial proceedings have run their course. It does not need Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or any other president to grant it permission to do so.

So I'm afraid you're confusing federal executions with state executions.

3 hours ago, oslooskar said:

Brewsterbudgen, you asked for an example, so here you are.

Harry Miller posted controversial opinions on Twitter concerning transgender issues. Humberside Police recorded 31 of his tweets as a “non-crime hate incident,” visited his workplace to speak to him about them, and subsequently warned him that he might face prosecution if matters escalated.

Miller took the matter to court, and the High Court held that the actions of Humberside Police, taken together, unlawfully interfered with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10.

Then there is Mark Meechan in Scotland, better known as “Count Dankula.” He posted an intentionally offensive comedy video showing his girlfriend's pug responding to Nazi phrases. Whatever you or I may think of the taste or humour involved, Meechan was arrested, prosecuted, convicted under the Communications Act and fined £800.

And this isn't merely a collection of anecdotes. Current Crown Prosecution Service guidance specifically deals with criminal offenses involving communications considered “grossly offensive,” “indecent,” “obscene,” or “menacing,” while instructing prosecutors to consider the defendant's right to freedom of expression.

So when I said that people in Britain can, in certain circumstances, face police investigation, arrest or prosecution over things they say or post online, what precisely was the “complete nonsense”?

You asked for examples. There they are.

As for starting another thread, I'm perfectly happy to leave the subject there. But perhaps next time it would be better not to declare something “complete nonsense” before asking for the evidence.

These are not new issues. The Harry Miller case happened 6 years ago, and in the end the police action was rightfully found to be unlawful. The Mark Meechan case was in 2020! And rightfully he was prosecuted for anti-semitic posts. I thought you were referring to more recent cases, not ones from many years ago.

9 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Did you read what the Cuban guy did, shoot his gf in the left eye socket, then waited 8 minutes and shot her in the other eye?

Then, there's a guy who raped a 5 year old.

Now, I don't support the death penalty, due to possibility of errors, but I can understand why these 3 should be put to the ultimate punishment. Even they say they should be punished.

Society has to defend itself against such people.

his ilk think rudolph hoess shouldnt have been executed

14 hours ago, oslooskar said:

So I'm afraid you're confusing federal executions with state executions.

It’s quite common for some non US citizens on this forum to state their misunderstandings of US laws while other non US citizens seem to have better knowledge of US laws than US citizens.

Edited August 14Aug 14 by novacova

On 8/14/2026 at 5:52 AM, brewsterbudgen said:

These are not new issues. The Harry Miller case happened 6 years ago, and in the end the police action was rightfully found to be unlawful. The Mark Meechan case was in 2020! And rightfully he was prosecuted for anti-semitic posts. I thought you were referring to more recent cases, not ones from many years ago.

Brewsterbudgen, you're moving the goalposts.

You originally said that what I wrote about freedom of expression in Britain was “complete nonsense” and “not true.” When you asked me for evidence, I gave you two concrete examples. Now that those examples have been provided, your argument has suddenly changed from “it isn't true” to “those cases aren't recent enough.”

You never asked me for examples from the last year or two. You asked for proof that people in Britain can face police action or prosecution over expression. That's precisely what I provided.

And your account of the Meechan case isn't even accurate. It wasn't “in 2020.” His notorious pug video was posted in 2016, he was convicted in 2018, and he was fined £800 that same year. Nor was this simply a case of someone making “anti-Semitic posts.” It involved an intentionally offensive comedy video, and whether criminal prosecution was an appropriate response to it was precisely the free-speech issue that made the case so controversial.

As for Harry Miller, the fact that he ultimately won his legal challenge doesn't somehow erase what happened to him. Quite the opposite: a court finding that police action unlawfully interfered with his freedom of expression rather strengthens my point that there was something worth being concerned about.

If you now want to argue that the situation has improved in recent years, that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make. But it is a very different argument from declaring my original statement “complete nonsense” and “not true.”

14 hours ago, novacova said:

It’s quite common for some non US citizens on this forum to state their misunderstandings of US laws while other non US citizens seem to have better knowledge of US laws than US citizens.

Yes, I agree, and the same can be true of history. My father, an American, knew far more about English history than most Englishmen he encountered. In fact, he used to scoff at the English because, as he put it, most of them knew next to nothing about King Alfred the Great except that he supposedly burned the cakes. 😄

What Hines did to his victim was so horrific I believe he forfeited the right to live from that moment on.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by bannork

1 hour ago, oslooskar said:

Brewsterbudgen, you're moving the goalposts.

You originally said that what I wrote about freedom of expression in Britain was “complete nonsense” and “not true.” When you asked me for evidence, I gave you two concrete examples. Now that those examples have been provided, your argument has suddenly changed from “it isn't true” to “those cases aren't recent enough.”

You never asked me for examples from the last year or two. You asked for proof that people in Britain can face police action or prosecution over expression. That's precisely what I provided.

And your account of the Meechan case isn't even accurate. It wasn't “in 2020.” His notorious pug video was posted in 2016, he was convicted in 2018, and he was fined £800 that same year. Nor was this simply a case of someone making “anti-Semitic posts.” It involved an intentionally offensive comedy video, and whether criminal prosecution was an appropriate response to it was precisely the free-speech issue that made the case so controversial.

As for Harry Miller, the fact that he ultimately won his legal challenge doesn't somehow erase what happened to him. Quite the opposite: a court finding that police action unlawfully interfered with his freedom of expression rather strengthens my point that there was something worth being concerned about.

If you now want to argue that the situation has improved in recent years, that's a perfectly legitimate argument to make. But it is a very different argument from declaring my original statement “complete nonsense” and “not true.”

Oh come on! Equating stories like these with the death penalty was ridiculous and you know it. Move on.

1 hour ago, bannork said:

What Hines did to his victim was so horrific I believe he forfeited the right to live from that moment on.

Al Bundy with a blow dried 80s hair style.

On 8/13/2026 at 9:55 AM, jcmj said:

If they have been given the death penalty and have no remorse or care if they are executed then please give them what they want and deserve. Quite wasting time and money keeping them on death row. If some continue to deny it and they still have appeals available, then give them their rights to stay if execution. Until they have run out of appeals and are 100% guaranteed to be the true killers.

Taxpayers don’t deserve to have to pay for those who admitted to their crimes, found guilty and sentenced to death.

Executions cost more that life sentences.

I support the death penalty as long as the police are completely honest, the courts are infallible and not corruptible, and evidence is unbiased and properly handled.

But back on planet earth.......

On 8/14/2026 at 3:06 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

We all know the answer to your last sentence: the United States and any other country practicing (and succeeding) the death penalty is NOT civilised by any metric.

In the U.S., 27 states have the death penalty and 23 have abolished it. Of the 27 that still have it on the books, four have declared an official moratorium on the death penalty and two others haven't used it in more than 50 years without a moratorium.

Are the 23 states that have abolished the death penalty considered civilized? One of those states, Michigan, abolished the death in 1847, before many European countries did so. Sweden, for example, carried out its final execution in 1910.

The Federal death penalty for first-degree murder applies to areas under Fdereal control, ranging from overseas territories to national parks and Federal buildings. There hasn't been a Federal execution for a crime not involving homicide since 1953, when two people were executed for espionage.

Edited August 15Aug 15 by Evil Penevil

A low value post has been removed:

13. Low-Value Posts - Posts that add no written contribution are not allowed.

    This includes emoji-only replies, very short comments, memes, GIFs, screenshots, or embedded social media posts without explanation or opinion.

An off topic post about an Israeli military program has been removed.

Anti-death penalty activists never give a <deleted> about the victims.

They erase their names, bury what was done to them, and treat the butchered, raped, and tortured as inconvenient props while they weep for the animals who did it.

The only life that matters to them is the one that should have ended years ago.

The pattern is always consistent: maximal empathy for the person who committed the crime, minimal interest in the people who suffered it.

All these kind BS is waste of taxpayers money:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsQ-vI8CnEA

She can heal her trauma after the execution...

Edited August 16Aug 16 by FinChin67

On 8/14/2026 at 3:45 PM, oslooskar said:

“Not civilised by any metric”? That is quite a claim. So the existence of capital punishment somehow cancels out every other measure by which a society might be judged, democratic government, freedom of expression, an independent judiciary, scientific achievement, education, living standards, civil rights, charitable institutions, and the rule of law?

You are perfectly entitled to believe that the death penalty is barbaric. What you cannot reasonably do is take your personal opposition to one particular criminal punishment and turn it into the absurd declaration that any country retaining it is “not civilised by any metric.”

And incidentally, you have just demonstrated why my earlier point was relevant. The moment you start judging whether an entire country is civilised, you have broadened the discussion beyond capital punishment. You cannot invoke “civilisation” when it suits your argument and then object when other measures of civilisation are introduced.

Well said. Criminal prosecutions and penalties are there as a deterrent. The harsher the penalties then the more civil the society becomes. Good examples of weak penalty systems with no death penalty and high crime rates would be South Africa, Mexico, Haiti and Columbia. So a question for the anti death penalty people here, would you prefer to raise children in one of the above civilized crap holes or a real civilized pro death penalty State?

8 minutes ago, ArchieBunker said:

Well said. Criminal prosecutions and penalties are there as a deterrent. The harsher the penalties then the more civil the society becomes. Good examples of weak penalty systems with no death penalty and high crime rates would be South Africa, Mexico, Haiti and Columbia. So a question for the anti death penalty people here, would you prefer to raise children in one of the above civilized crap holes or a real civilized pro death penalty State?

I'd prefer to raise children in Europe.

14 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Oh come on! Equating stories like these with the death penalty was ridiculous and you know it. Move on.

Brewsterbudgen, I didn't “equate” anything with the death penalty. I responded to your comment about what constitutes a “civilised country” by pointing out that I consider freedom of expression another important measure of a civilised society.

You then called what I said about Britain “complete nonsense” and “not true” and challenged me to provide evidence. I did. Instead of addressing that evidence, you first complained that the examples weren't recent enough, and now you're telling me to “move on.”

That's fine. I'm perfectly happy to move on. But don't challenge someone to provide evidence and then, when they provide it, pretend the argument was about something else entirely.

14 minutes ago, oslooskar said:

Brewsterbudgen, I didn't “equate” anything with the death penalty. I responded to your comment about what constitutes a “civilised country” by pointing out that I consider freedom of expression another important measure of a civilised society.

You then called what I said about Britain “complete nonsense” and “not true” and challenged me to provide evidence. I did. Instead of addressing that evidence, you first complained that the examples weren't recent enough, and now you're telling me to “move on.”

That's fine. I'm perfectly happy to move on. But don't challenge someone to provide evidence and then, when they provide it, pretend the argument was about something else entirely.

I posted that I find countries that use the death penalty to be "uncivilised". I have strong objections to the death penalty, but totally accept that others do not. For me, there can be no place for capital punishment in a civilised country.

You then countered by suggesting that the UK is uncivilised. I quote: "And if we are going to talk about what is becoming of supposedly “civilised” countries, I would be far more concerned about the erosion of freedom of speech in the United Kingdom. A society in which people increasingly have to worry about legal consequences for expressing unpopular or offensive opinions should give us considerably more cause for concern than the execution of people convicted of the most brutal murders."

I think it is "nonsense" to suggest that the legal consequences for expressing unpopular or offensive opinions in the UK can be equated with the death penalty, and to suggest that these consequences (a fine?) should be of more concern than putting people to death is, to me, astonishing.

So, we disagree. There's really nothing more to say. I hope!

19 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

I posted that I find countries that use the death penalty to be "uncivilised". I have strong objections to the death penalty, but totally accept that others do not. For me, there can be no place for capital punishment in a civilised country.

You then countered by suggesting that the UK is uncivilised. I quote: "And if we are going to talk about what is becoming of supposedly “civilised” countries, I would be far more concerned about the erosion of freedom of speech in the United Kingdom. A society in which people increasingly have to worry about legal consequences for expressing unpopular or offensive opinions should give us considerably more cause for concern than the execution of people convicted of the most brutal murders."

I think it is "nonsense" to suggest that the legal consequences for expressing unpopular or offensive opinions in the UK can be equated with the death penalty, and to suggest that these consequences (a fine?) should be of more concern than putting people to death is, to me, astonishing.

So, we disagree. There's really nothing more to say. I hope!

Brewsterbudgen, you're still arguing against something I didn't say.

I never said that the legal consequences for expressing an opinion are “equivalent” to the death penalty. Those are your words, not mine. I said that I am more concerned about the erosion of freedom of expression in a supposedly civilised society than I am about the execution of people lawfully convicted of the most brutal murders. You may find that view astonishing, but it is nevertheless the view I expressed.

More importantly, you originally didn't merely disagree with my priorities. You said my claim about freedom of expression in Britain was “complete nonsense” and “not true,” and when I challenged that dismissal, you asked me to provide evidence. I did exactly that.

Since then, the argument has migrated from “it isn't true,” to “those examples aren't recent enough,” and now to “you equated it with the death penalty.” I did no such thing.

If you want to say that you consider capital punishment a greater threat to a civilised society than restrictions on freedom of expression, fair enough. We disagree. But please disagree with what I actually said rather than repeatedly recasting my argument into something easier to attack.

And yes, I'm quite happy to leave it there.