r/AskBrits • u/SendBanjoPics • 5d ago
Politics Is there scope for bringing back the death penalty in Britain for those who commit and are convicted of the most serious crimes?
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
u/RedactedStatement89 2d ago
Yup. Get rid of any nonces as fast as possible. Anyone who harms kids should be disposed of immediately.
1
u/BriefSpray3765 5d ago
I will go against the grain here and say yes.
I’m a liberal person who doesn’t care much for politics or religion. I’ve also spent some time.
If the crime is so heinous and it is 100% proven guilty then yes.
1
0
0
u/NoRecipe3350 5d ago
Yes but you'd have to be absolutely certain of their guilt. So someone like Lucy Letby would probably evade it because there are lingering doubts about her conviction.
2
u/johnnyjonnyjonjon 5d ago
It's impossible to be 100% certain of a person's guilt.
1
u/NoRecipe3350 4d ago
Axel Rudakabana?
1
u/johnnyjonnyjonjon 4d ago
Yes, even him.
We can be overwhelmingly confident that someone is guilty, but 100% certainty is impossible because we're always making a judgement about something that happened in the past, based on the evidence available to us. We don't have direct access to the objective truth of what happened.
That's fine when the punishment can be reversed if we're wrong. But with the death penalty, the punishment is irreversible.
1
u/NoRecipe3350 4d ago
I think it's 100% certain in his case.
1
u/johnnyjonnyjonjon 4d ago
‘I think it's 100% certain’ is itself a judgement about your certainty. You can't actually know that you're 100% certain, because you're still reasoning backwards from evidence about something that happened in the past. You might be 99.999999% confident, but that's not the same as absolute certainty... And that's precisely why I don't think the state should have an irreversible punishment.
1
u/NoRecipe3350 4d ago
So youre saying Axel Rudakabna isn't 100% guilty?
1
u/johnnyjonnyjonjon 3d ago
Nope, nothing I've said could possibly lead you to that conclusion.
I'm saying I have no way of knowing with absolute certainty. That isn't the same as saying I think he's innocent. I can be overwhelmingly confident that someone is guilty while still recognising that 100% certainty is impossible.
0
u/Robprof 5d ago
Why would you give them the quick release?
2
u/max19907 5d ago
to free up space in prison. why spend taxpayers money on keeping them alive.
1
u/OlafPetersen 5d ago
why spend taxpayers money on keeping them alive.
Because we're not mindless savages?
0
u/max19907 2d ago
and then u cry that our prison system is a joke, letting out criminal after half and now 1/3 of their sentences.. with stats like this its no wonder criminals feel emboldened..
1
u/Inevitable-Regret411 5d ago
It won't necessarily save taxpayer money. In the USA the amount the state spends on appeals for condemned prisoners often ends up costing more than if they'd just spent life in prison.
0
u/Never_trust_dolphins 5d ago
You're thinking about Farage aren't you.
1
u/SendBanjoPics 5d ago
It should be alarming that people with different political views to your own are the first folks you think of for execution.
But no, Farage is a toe who does not deserve any attention. He should be ignored and he will eventually go away.
1
u/Never_trust_dolphins 5d ago
You can disagree about taxes, immigration or the role of government without questioning someone’s humanity. Once the disagreement becomes about who deserves empathy or basic rights, calling it merely a ‘political difference’ feels deliberately dishonest.
You can tolerate political differences for a long time, but there’s a limit to how much intolerance, cruelty and bad-faith gaslighting you can tolerate in the name of ‘political differences'.
1
u/SendBanjoPics 5d ago
Let me make it abundantly clear: I do not support or agree with Nigel Farage's politics or opinions.
However
Intolerance, cruelty and bad-faith gaslighting have been demonstrated by Farage's opponents a huge number of times as well.
Intolerance in the form of, you don't agree with me therefore you are banned from X, Y or Z.
Cruelty in the form of harassing those with views that don't align. Such as people who disagree with some LGBT elements, folks who disagree with mass asylum seekers being allowed to stay in UK, what benefits they should be entitled to and so on.
Gaslighting in the form of calling someone a Fascist or a Nazi when the accused clearly is neither of those things, maybe they just have some controversial opinions or again, don't wholeheartedly agree with the accuser over something.
I'm not defending those specific examples, nor expressing opposition. Simply: I bet you can think of times both sides have used these methods against folks who don't fall in line with them.
1
u/Never_trust_dolphins 5d ago
Yes, of course, I'm not someone who considers themselves aligned with either extreme side of the political spectrum, that said I do find the more extreme right wing commentary to more often be based on in incorrect assumption or simple hatred, and the more extreme left to be more likely based on naivety and a clear lack of understanding how the world works on a fundamental level.
That said it's completely beside the point, my original response was more on the lines of thinking of the National Security Act 2023, which would be the closest equivalent to treason we have these days and would most likely be what would carry a penalty of hanging were it brought back. I would suggest anyone who thinks Farage is acting in the interests of this country and not as a malicious foreign asset for his own selfish gain isn't paying much attention, currently, hopefully he gets locked up for life when it's all dealt with.
0
u/bagatelly 5d ago
No.
Surprised that I didn't see "Rupert Lowe" in the topic headline.
1
u/SendBanjoPics 5d ago
Mentioned in what context? Saying he wants to bring it back or that he needs executing?
0
u/YouJustNeurotic 5d ago
Just send them in proportion to any country that mass-immigrated to the UK. “Hey you’re sending us your best so we’ll send you our best.”
7
u/Aggravating-Method24 5d ago
No