The question split the room almost down the middle, but the narrow No victory concealed a more interesting division: many Yes voters were not voting for executions at all, but for the right to decide. The strongest case on the page was also the chamber’s most-respected, calling it a question of whether society should “kill its own citizens”.
No’s argument had two sturdy pillars: irreversible error and distrust of plebiscites on punishment. One voter put the first bluntly — “Miscarriages of justice will always occur” — while another said the country should not “govern by populist plebiscite”; the floor gave the greatest respect to the broader claim that a civilised society must behave better than the worst people it imprisons.
Yes voters were more divided than their label suggested. Some wanted the death penalty for the gravest crimes, with one insisting that modern evidence makes the truth easier to establish, but others were voting only for a public say: “I am always pro direct democracy,” wrote one, while another called a referendum “the purest form of democracy”. The two sides often answered different questions — one about who should decide, the other about whether the state should ever kill.
That distinction makes this a revealing entry in the UK’s argument over direct democracy and the limits of popular power. Even some Yes voters warned that the question was too emotive for a simple binary vote, while a No voter conceded they might support a tightly limited penalty in principle but lacked faith that the process could be kept from abuse.
The result was No, but the debate’s real centre of gravity was not abolition versus restoration. It was whether an irreversible act can safely be handed to a referendum at all.
38 Opinions
I, for one, am proud to live in a society that doesn’t kill its own citizens. Capital punishment was rightly abolished long ago, and it should stay that way. On top of that, there are a great many things that the general public aren’t equipped to have a say on. Notions such as this, clearly led by emotion rather than by any evidence that it would serve as a deterrent, are among those that the public should stay out of.
Capital punishment is among act that satisfies mob anger. It solves nothing and it absolutely isn't a deterrent. If it was nobody who was executed in the past would committed their crime. Plus you can't un execute someone when you're wrong.
Brexit was a disaster for our country and an example of how people can be swayed and influenced .I don't want the far right getting hold of this one.
A miscarriage of justice that results in prison time can ruin a life, but at least there is still a life to be lived. With capital punishment that is no longer possible
Capital punishment was abolished in the UK many years ago for very good humanitarian reasons. We don't govern by populist plebiscite.
Miscarriages of justice will always occur. This is an irreversible penalty that has led to the deaths of innocents and will do so again.
Yes we are the citizens of our nation and absolutely have a right to vote on major issues such as the death penalty especially in very serious cases.
We got rid of capital punishment specifically because we kept hanging the wrong people.
A civilised society must behave better than the worst and most base of its members. If someone murdered my loved ones, I'd personally want the death penalty for the perpetrator due to sheer emotion and desire for revenge. This doesn't mean that society has the right to take life, despite advancements in DNA testing almost eliminating the miscarriage of justice risk. I just don't want to live somewhere where the state's instrument of justice can take a human life.
I am actually shocked that I would consider this. I always thought it was a no-brainier, but as society has declined, I have often wondered if the deterrents are no longer fit for purpose. I'm not sure how I would vote in a referendum, but I'm open to having the discussion across the nations.