[UK] Judge lifts ban on naming killer who murdered and raped 6 year old - Sensationalist Headlines

Considering being drawn and quartered was a punishment reserved solely for cases of High Treason there was never a time a simple murderer would have been subject to it. And you're making yourself look like a nutter by calling for the practice to be brought back, its literally ISIS tier cruelty.

Maybey a bit much, but people like this have made it clear they don't want to be anything approaching a civilized person and do not deserve to share the world with us

It doesn't matter what this person did, we do not carry the death penalty for any crimes and nor should we. Simply killing these people, no matter how awful their crime, is not a solution nor is it justice. It won't bring the girl back and won't undo what's happened, it won't bring comfort to her family. It just ends up with two corpses and two grieving families. Better this person live out their life in incarceration, for all intents and purposes his life is over, he'll never be truly free again. I know some people think life in prison is comfortable but I guarantee you it isn't.

This is what I've always wondered about justice, it's supposed to be objective but different places and people seem to have wildly varying ideas of what it is. The family could see it as a just end. And society at large could see locking him up forever to be the right solution. I suppose justice is that complex and really has few if any definite answers aside from what our institutions decide it is.

Saying "I'm okay with the death penalty only when the crime is REALLY REALLY BAD and only when they DEFINITELY DID IT" is ludicrous to me What, do you guys think they were giving out the death penalty for jaywalking? Do you think "only if bad and only if certain" wasn't already what people said about the death penalty? All that statement boils down to is "I 100% support the death penalty. Here is my criteria:"

I used to be in favour of the death penalty, but lately I'm thinking of it more of a relic of a time where we didn't have resources to deal with people who will never be released again. We have those resources now and it's actually cheapter to hold someone for life than to litigate the death penalty, so he should really just be locked up for life in a high security prison.

You don't even need it. Basic human rights along with the significant possibility of killing an innocent should be more than enough.

The government doesn't have an entitlement to a portion of top 1%ers inheretance because muh authoritarianism but state sanction killing of citizens is A-OK

Justice is never solely objective, because many of its tests require a subjective approach to remain fair; pure objectivity in law has led to great miscarriages of justice in the past.

because they can be productive members of society from within incarceration? or is this concept beyond the realms of possibility? and tbh., there is no such thing as rehabilitating murderers. I'm not sure where do people get this idea from exactly. It makes null sense.

Bit of an absurd statement there my guy. "Murderers" is a wide category. Are we talking "moment of passion" murderers? Because they can definitely be rehabilitated. Are we talking "serial killers"? Because depending on the circumstances you could probably get them relatively safe to release into the public again. Weird suicide cult leaders? Well, maybe not those guys, they're just really good at convincing others to kill themselves on their behalf. We don't have all the information on rehabilitation to really fully understand what is beyond help right now. Advances in psychology and all that change how we look at things like this constantly after all. It's definitely something that should be kept on the table when dealing with any prisoner.

It naturally follows from the belief that everyone should have the right to their own self-determination.

It may have been a bit of an absurd statement. However, the statement based on a certain principle of mine that whether it's a "moment of passion" murderer, a serial rapist-murderer, or a weirdo suicidal cult leader-murderer - they all have proven themselves to be very dangerous individuals, and thus a very "risky" decision to ever let them out.

alright I support the death penalty for crimes that are indisputably horrible in nature where the perpetrator is beyond redemption. there are people who are incapable of being "fixed". it is a horrible reality of our world, but some people are born without empathy and enjoy raping and killing people. Jeffrey Dahmer was one, this kid is likely the same. i do not think it is wrong to execute them. i don't think it is lowering ourselves to their level to do so.

Okay, so how long are you going to keep ignoring every argument against the death penalty?

The "papers" could include a clause that it is verbally revocable at any point.

No. Anyone should be allowed to choose when their life ends, and as a result prisoners should also. Yeah? It's not an unbreakable oath. If you don't want to kill yourself you don't have to kill yourself.

is there anything wrong with letting a person have the choice to die instead of spending the rest of what's left of their life in prison?

The jury heard the teenager previously bought cannabis from Alesha's father, Robert MacPhail, but the pair fell out five months before her death over an unpaid £10 drug debt. drug dealers who have kids in their house sicken me. even if its just weed i've been to enough dealers houses to know that the people who hang around there are not good for kids to be around.

It is two entirely different things to prevent someone from committing suicide and facilitating (or not facilitating) assisted suicide in your prison system. I'm going to go ahead and play along here. Let's say we did facilitate assisted suicide in the prison system... Now, how are we not going to end up with prisoners opting in for assisted suicide, and then sooner or later opting out of it, multiple times even, thus wasting time and resources every time?

Not on paper but being falsely accused of a crime can very easily lead someone down a depression spiral that leads to them getting suicidal, and if they want to off themselves and the state is like "WELL SURE THING BUDDY, WE HAVE SOME NICE DOCTORS FROM SWEDEN TO HELP WITH THAT!" I can easily see a circumstance where someone takes the state offered suicide while innocent and then it comes out later that they didn't do it. Can you IMAGINE the backlash that'll happen then?

I don't think it has to be that complex. Simply make it a fundamental human right to end your own existence when you choose. People already kill themselves and it being legal won't change that. You could bury it under the necessary beaurocracy such that impulse decisions are prevented. People already kill themselves after being punished for things they didn't do. We already get upset when this happens.

Aside from invalidating the point of life in prison being a punishment by letting them die first.

I think you'll find many who are against the death penalty also don't believe it should be concerned with punishment

Good. Name and shame all of them regardless of age, I say.