People who wanted the noose and people who saw it as barbaric ended in a dead heat, with No taking the decision by a single vote. In this self-selected online vote, the result was less a settled consensus than a knife-edge refusal to make the state’s punishment irreversible.
The most-respected argument on the page came from No: “This country no longer hangs people. I feel it's barbaric.” Its strongest case was not softness towards murderers but distrust of finality — “what if the person was innocent?” — reinforced by the claim that prison allows correction, while execution does not.
Yes voters argued from desert, deterrence and the protection of others. The floor’s strongest Yes case said, “If you don't respect the basic right of life for others, you forfeit yours”, while another put the practical case plainly: “Dead murderers do not reoffend, cost less than life sentences.” But their safeguards — incontrovertible evidence, multiple victims, or the worst offences only — made the side sound conditional even as No attacked the principle itself.
The two sides therefore talked past each other. Yes treated modern forensics as a route to certainty; No treated any residual possibility of error as decisive, with one voice warning, “Child murder isn't the one I'd lead with because mothers will end up hanged for cot death.” Several Yes voters also widened the question to rape, paedophilia or other crimes, suggesting that the proposal was being used as a test case for capital punishment rather than answered on its narrow terms.
The room did not close the argument; it declined to cross the final line. On this evidence, the possibility of an irreversible mistake outweighed the demand for an irreversible sentence by the smallest margin available.
24 Opinions
Like the rest of the country I was really torn on this question. I eventually voted yes but could easily have voted no. Maybe a compelling case hasn't been made to change the law just yet.
1- It's not a deterrent- look at US states with death penalty 2- Miscarriages of justice will lead to state murder 3- A full life term is a worse punishment 4- A psychopath would see no point in leaving witnesses alive if facing death already. 5- Increase funding for the police instead I understand the emotional need for retribution, the need to remove such a person. I would not condemn a parent for asking for the sentence, BUT the damage to society would be too great.
We should also include child rapists and illegal immigrants
The death sentence should be brought back for the worst offences, not just child murderers. Ill caveat that with the fact that evidence must be incontrovertible so there can be no possible miscarriage of justice. Such as the killers of Lee Rigby, literally red handed. If you don't respect the basic right of life for others, you forfeit yours. Life must also mean life. Calling 15 years a life sentence is an insult, particularly where you taken many more years from someone.
No. You cannot tell people not to kill then kill in cold blood. And innocent people WILL be killed.
Child murder isn't the one I'd lead with because mothers will end up hanged for cot death.
YES To all those saying the wrong person could be hung by mistake. I'd suggest if today's technology can prove that there were innocent people hung in the past (the most usual excuse for not hanging convicted people) it can equally prove without doubt that today's convictions are sound & correct
I'm not sure this will cut any ice, but the idea that the state should be alllowed to do something (i.e. terminate somebody's life electively) that its citizens are not allowed to do just does not sit well with me - and that's even before I start thinking about possible miscarriage of justice issues...
Murder along with paedophilia and rape should be capital punishments but wrongful charges for such crimes must be punished too.
For a crime as henious as the Bulger case then yes 100%. The killers are adults now and they have no changed .