Lucy Letby- An example of why the death penalty is needed?

[cambridgeshire canary 6,821]

Thought I would get a nice, juicy spicy and controversial thread started. Now, first off I am not one for the death sentence normally. However, sometimes, just sometimes a case comes along in which what someone has done was proved to be them without a doubt and the things they have done are so evil, so abhorrent and so vile that quite frankly I fail to see a reason that every tax payer in this country should have to have their money go towards keeping this person alive and protected for the rest of their life when it would be so, so much quicker and cheaper to just buy them a rope and a chair.

Of course, I'm sure the morality of it might disturb some. I get it. Like I said, I'm not one for the death penalty most of the time either. But then there are such cases just the small 1 percent of cases that really do cause me to rethink. Like say, this case. Or Fred and Rose or say Ian Watkins.

Far as I'm concerned the people that do such acts of pure evil like these cases have given up their right to life. And sure, no doubt so would say that them spending the rest of their lives in a cell is worse than a quick death. But you know what? In some ways I disagree. We have seen it lots of times that vile killers and psycopaths such as these LOVE the attention. They love the fame. Sure, they might get locked away and never see the sun again but they just love waking up in the morning knowing their face is on the news and on every newspaper in the country. They love giving interviews and spending every day knowing people are crying over what they did. yet most of these people have one thing in common; They love to kill but are scared to die.

But I have spoken enough. Let's have everyone elses hot takes and spicy opinions.

Edited August 21, 2023 by cambridgeshire canary

[Daz Sparks 1,186]

Lucy Letby's notoriety will fade long before she dies in prison, whilst she is front page news today, in a few weeks her story will slowly get less and less attention. 

Peter Sutcliffe was one of THE most infamous killers in Britain for a century,  but after a short time in prison, he had to get a beating or indeed be blinded in one eye, to be news. 

The death penalty is not the answer. Loss of liberty, whilst seemingly not enough for some, is the only viable recourse. Vengeance doesn't solve it, and is no deterrent, just look at.the US. 

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

Then the likes of Andrew Malkinson show why the death penalty would be a crashing failure.

EDIT: I think the only time I would countenance it would be something like what happened in Norway in World War Two with Vidkun Quisling. In Norway there pretty much hadn't been a death penalty outside of wartime since Norwegian independence in 1905 but it got revised for wartime crimes to punish its traitors (of which Quisling was the leader). Since then it was never used and indeed was completely removed from law in 1979.

Edited August 21, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

Then the likes of Andrew Malkinson show why the death penalty would be a crashing failure.

The bar there was beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any possible doubt. The simple fact there was other DNA there should have made it questionable against a bar of beyond reasonable doubt, but there's no way he could have been convicted against a bar of any possible doubt.

Also, I don't think rape is a good example to go for given the amount of political pressure there has been to up conviction rates as a proportion of prosecutions.

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The bar there was beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any possible doubt. The simple fact there was other DNA there should have made it questionable against a bar of beyond reasonable doubt, but there's no way he could have been convicted against a bar of any possible doubt.

Also, I don't think rape is a good example to go for given the amount of political pressure there has been to up conviction rates as a proportion of prosecutions.

Sure, but the key point is this: miscarriages of justice happen and the death penalty means they cannot be remedied.

[Daz Sparks 1,186]

14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The bar there was beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any possible doubt. The simple fact there was other DNA there should have made it questionable against a bar of beyond reasonable doubt, but there's no way he could have been convicted against a bar of any possible doubt.

Also, I don't think rape is a good example to go for given the amount of political pressure there has been to up conviction rates as a proportion of prosecutions.

The bar in this case, was being moved around by Greater Manchester Police. As GH states, this case is a demonstration of a miscarriage of justice that could happen at any time, for any case.

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The bar there was beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond any possible doubt. The simple fact there was other DNA there should have made it questionable against a bar of beyond reasonable doubt, but there's no way he could have been convicted against a bar of any possible doubt.

Also, I don't think rape is a good example to go for given the amount of political pressure there has been to up conviction rates as a proportion of prosecutions.

Perhaps the Birmingham Six case presents a better example. As convicted IRA terrorists found guilty of mass murder they would definitely have been hanged had the death penalty been available. Their release decades later when it was proven they were not guilty would not have been possible.

[Fen Canary 871]

I’ve got no moral objection to the death penalty, there are plenty of people in prison who deserve to be turned into a human swingball for their crimes. However I wouldn’t want to bring it back for three reasons.

Firstly I don’t believe it’s a deterrent, I think the deterrent is believing you’ll actually get caught rather than what the punishment is. Secondly as has been mentioned if you convict and hang the wrong person you’ve no way of rectifying the mistake. Lastly I don’t believe it would be administered evenly throughout society. A rich and powerful person would be much more likely to avoid it than a working class one even if the crimes committed were identical.

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

10 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I’ve got no moral objection to the death penalty, there are plenty of people in prison who deserve to be turned into a human swingball for their crimes. However I wouldn’t want to bring it back for three reasons.

Firstly I don’t believe it’s a deterrent, I think the deterrent is believing you’ll actually get caught rather than what the punishment is. Secondly as has been mentioned if you convict and hang the wrong person you’ve no way of rectifying the mistake. Lastly I don’t believe it would be administered evenly throughout society. A rich and powerful person would be much more likely to avoid it than a working class one even if the crimes committed were identical.

It was never a deterrent, really. But the advantage was that when we consider recidivism rates, it stopped that.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,821]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps the Birmingham Six case presents a better example. As convicted IRA terrorists found guilty of mass murder they would definitely have been hanged had the death penalty been available. Their release decades later when it was proven they were not guilty would not have been possible.

Honestly I can see a timeline in which the IRA bombing of the Brighton Hotel was successful and the IRA killed Thatcher and in this timeline the death penalty was brought back permanently and full time.

But historical what ifs are a subject for another day I suppose

Edited August 21, 2023 by cambridgeshire canary

[ricardo 7,402]

I do not require the state to exact lethal vengeance on my behalf. Its something a civilised society should have outgrown.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

 

6 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I do not require the state to exact lethal vengeance on my behalf. Its something a civilised society should have outgrown.

And yet we'll exact lethal sanctions on dogs for simply biting someone on instinct, with no mitigation for whether it has been tormented either.

I remember a story many years back of a Golden retriever, which was put down for biting a child. After it had been put down, the vet found a pencil stuffed in its ear.

I think there's a much stronger case for putting down people who are a clear danger to others and should have an idea of right and wrong than there is animals.

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Naturalcynic 675]

Rightly we all consider her actions to have been utterly abhorrent.  Defenceless, often premature, new-born babies murdered in cold blood.  And this makes me ask a challenging question to those who argue for abortion on demand right up to the end of a pregnancy and way beyond the current limit of 24 weeks.  Morally, how would that be any different to what Letby has done?

[cambridgeshire canary 6,821]

7 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Rightly we all consider her actions to have been utterly abhorrent.  Defenceless, often premature, new-born babies murdered in cold blood.  And this makes me ask a challenging question to those who argue for abortion on demand right up to the end of a pregnancy and way beyond the current limit of 24 weeks.  Morally, how would that be any different to what Letby has done?

Suppose the only real argument is that real doctors would do what they could to make sure an abortion is painless while Lucy on the other hand killed newborns in much more violent and nasty methods.

[Naturalcynic 675]

16 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Suppose the only real argument is that real doctors would do what they could to make sure an abortion is painless while Lucy on the other hand killed newborns in much more violent and nasty methods.

I’m really not sure that very late stage abortion could ever be considered painless, but regardless of that it still begs the question of how it would be any different morally and ethically to what Letby did.

[benchwarmer 625]

Why do we think death is a greater punishment than decades in prison without hope of release?  I know which I'd choose.

[Herman 9,837]

2 hours ago, ricardo said:

I do not require the state to exact lethal vengeance on my behalf. Its something a civilised society should have outgrown.

All those up for death penalty should have their names put into a big hat. A name will be pulled out of the hat on death day and that person will have to flick the switch. 

[TheGunnShow 6,019]

Wonder if this finally gives the lie to the notion that women are naturally "nurturers"?

[dylanisabaddog 5,013]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Wonder if this finally gives the lie to the notion that women are naturally "nurturers"?

Women are responsible for 20% of all child sex offences. The figure is higher for non sexual crime.

From personal experience of work with dog rescue, the 2 most abhorrent cases of extreme cruelty I've seen were both perpetrated by women. 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,821]

10 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Wonder if this finally gives the lie to the notion that women are naturally "nurturers"?

Reminds me of all the people who to this day somehow try to claim Rose West was just some innocent victim being abused by Fred who either did not know what she was doing or was innocent and setup by him.

Somehow they ignore that one of the murders took place while Fred was locked up and she was out and about.

[Midlands Yellow 4,085]

It’s never coming back and rightly so. Isn’t Belarus the only country in Europe that still uses the death penalty? Say no more.  

[Naturalcynic 675]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Wonder if this finally gives the lie to the notion that women are naturally "nurturers"?

Why should it?  One swallow doesn’t make a summer.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

It must not be restored. As Ricardo says, the State has no right to take another life as a punishment. We know they probably do but not in this way. And of course the wrong person is always another reason to back up the argument.

There are ways to make custodial sentences tougher if we seek revenge and in her case there has to be some form of vengeful punishment. I believe most institutions have their own ways of exacting that revenge.

[Captain Holt 522]

5 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Rightly we all consider her actions to have been utterly abhorrent.  Defenceless, often premature, new-born babies murdered in cold blood.  And this makes me ask a challenging question to those who argue for abortion on demand right up to the end of a pregnancy and way beyond the current limit of 24 weeks.  Morally, how would that be any different to what Letby has done?

Are you having a laugh?

[Barbe bleu 833]

7 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

Are you having a laugh?

I think it, does life only begin at birth, is a fair question.   I suspect the two of you might have different opinions,   both unprovable

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

50 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

It must not be restored. As Ricardo says, the State has no right to take another life as a punishment. We know they probably do but not in this way. And of course the wrong person is always another reason to back up the argument.

There are ways to make custodial sentences tougher if we seek revenge and in her case there has to be some form of vengeful punishment. I believe most institutions have their own ways of exacting that revenge.

It's not punishment in my book. It's removing the threat to others' safety and saving oxygen and resources. Think of it as helping the environment.

She deserves to die; nobody needs her. She will never be any use to anyone.

She's a serial killer. Respect of right to life of someone like that is absurd.

Edited August 21, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Naturalcynic 675]

24 minutes ago, Captain Holt said:

Are you having a laugh?

No, it’s a genuine question worthy of debate.

[Daz Sparks 1,186]

11 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not punishment in my book. It's removing the threat to others' safety and saving oxygen and resources. Think of it as helping the environment.

She deserves to die; nobody needs her. She will never be any use to anyone.

She's a serial killer. Respect of right to life of someone like that is absurd.

It wasn't framed as punishment, it was framed as vengeance. As for removing the threat to others, it has, and as stated, how many innocents are you prepared to execute to ensure you mete out your ultimate justice to the ones you perceive deserve?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,602]

Just now, Daz Sparks said:

It wasn't framed as punishment, it was framed as vengeance. As for removing the threat to others, it has, and as stated, how many innocents are you prepared to execute to ensure you mete out your ultimate justice to the ones you perceive deserve?

Does it bother when dangerous animals are put down? She's a dangerous animal; she should be put down. Not for vengeance, not for punishment, just to get rid of her.

[Daz Sparks 1,186]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

Does it bother when dangerous animals are put down? She's a dangerous animal; she should be put down. Not for vengeance, not for punishment, just to get rid of her.

You omitted to answer the final part of the post.