Public Executions: But with a referendum

Policing & Security
1

Firstly, the death penalty. This is an important Debate that will require a lot of regulatory policy to ensure a french revolution style event does not happen. We can name certain characters in the UK that would have been executed by our corrupt governments.

So. Firstly, i would propose a Public Execution system specific to high profile and 100% guilty criminals that engage in crimes that are so terrible, that there are no good options.

Axel, for instance. Punishing him costs taxpayer money. Executing him and throwing his ash into the ocean is far better imo.

But
 i might be in the minority here?

So. Put it to a nationwide vote. When cases such as this occur, especially in our current environment. Put it to the nation in a referendum whether these individuals should be put to the noose, burned to ash, and scattered some place never to be disclosed.

This at least for now will be a stopgap for the terrorists littering our country, and this would not need to be permanently imposed either. But would be good policy to keep to swiftly deal with such evil in a way that should hopefully be safe from corruption.

My policy suggestions i know are not going to be perfect and i would like more refinement on them before even getting close to actively being used.

3 Likes
2

I agree. Capital punishment should be a power reserved for the King in my opinion. For particular crimes, where the person is guilty and there is no room for error.

4 Likes
3

This is a difficut one to get passed. The main objection used by opponents will be “but what about if they’re actually innocent?” Th is an extremely hard argument to overcome.

So I’d suggest the best approach would be to counter that argument in the law. People arguing “make sure they’re 100% guilty” - well there’s no way to know that if they plead their innocence. Much better would be to say “only apply it to people who plead guilty” - that way there is NO way for opponents to claim it the policy might ensnare the innocent.

Not perfect, but a policy with a chance of actually getting public support.

1 Like
4

Well in this case i’m refering strictly to scenarios like with Axel where there is no doubt whatsoever. Extreme cases.

5

I don’t support the death penalty under any circumstances. There is always a possibility of innocence. The possible case of Lucy Letby may be instructive? Also, I don’t support this assisted suicide bill, again because you can never be 100% sure. Moreover, the state should never, ever be in the business of killing its own citizens - that’s a red line for me. Of course, situations of war (preferably just war) are different. But in peacetime, the state shouldn’t ever be killing people (or giving them the means to kill themselves). Have a look at some of the research into the cerebral trauma which death row victims suffer in the United States if you have any doubts.

1 Like
6

I believe people might be missing the main point of this suggestion.

7

I agree regarding assisted suicide. No government should be given the power to kill its citizens. Canada is a prime example of how an initially narrow policy has been continually expanded and now used for those who are unable to receive proper state care

2 Likes
8

Assisted suicide (or ‘assisted dying’, as it is euphemistically referred to) is quite another question to capital punishment. The reasons for bringing about death in either case are quite unrelated. I think that assisted dying needs to be discussed under a different policy heading.

9

Lots of those jailed for last summer’s riots pled guilty because they were heavily leant on to do so. Conversely, if anyone who pleads innocent automatically avoids the death penalty if found guilty, you’d have people like Axel pleading innocent just to avoid hanging if found guilty, creating an awful lot of grief for the families.

4 Likes
10

It appears you didn’t properly read the policy.
None of the political prisoners would be killed, they wouldn’t even be considered for a public execution, the government would get stomped in the referendum.

Pleading innocent or guilty is also not going to be in the equation.
I’m talking about proven guilty, in extremely obvious and extreme scenarios such as Axel.

He would plead innocent but it wouldn’t get him off.

Seems you’re not the only one misunderstanding however.

My policy has accounted for everyones issues with the death penalty already, in this thread.

2 Likes
11

gods please no the reason we stopped is that justice was miscarried it woudnt the black stain to end the crown, esppically if the king turned out to want to do it

12

Charles used to joke that he would change his name to George at this coranation as the only king previously to be beheaded was Charles the first and he said. So far Charles has a poor survival rate as king

1 Like
13

Palace refused to comment it wouldnt have been unheard of to choose a another name edward the 8th the abdication was called David mostly nut had he become king he would have been Edward 8th

14

Again you’ve missed key elements of the policy here. The title says an important feature.

1 Like
15

As much as I often scream at the news ‘this is when we need the death penalty’ no. When it comes down to it I don’t agree with the death penalty.

Punishing murder with murder is a contradiction of itself.

It is statistically proven that it doesn’t not prevent crime.

It could end very discriminatory to those of poorer backgrounds that can not afford good defence and representation.

It’s more expensive to execute than it is to detain.

It would be a huge blow to our reputation as a nation. Think about how medieval we view countries with the penalty and how often dead cert cases turned out to be wrong.

That being said I would like to see people like Axel be imprisoned for life. Some people should never be allowed back into society.

16

Forgive me if I have missed this somewhere throughout the comments, but what would be the mechanism to choose who gets a vote put against them?

So you used Axel Rudakubana as your example, which is an easy one to point out. But what about lesser known people who have committed similar or even worse crimes?

Is it the government who decides this? The CPS? The judge? In any case, all of these institutions have already lost faith with the populous and I can’t imagine any new institution having a good will towards them.

(This is not meant as a dig and is in good faith, just genuinely curious as to your opinion or suggestion)

1 Like
17

thankyou for that, you of course correct.

18

inst that rerally just pressuring a huge problem of play safe and just say guitly. Way you you want to face a public armed with choose just served as new highlight button before hearing about all the beds that can be sure to fell are just a little bit safer. Jurys are selected for the abiltity that the they at the time time to make a judgement have been made aware resonably to make an informed decision. Or is the point that the judicary is the failure, I follow a youtuber called black belt barrister and would recomend i barrister that mkies current events out as it relates in law and from that view. He make the case that this judicary acts according to guidelines that are set by government or bodies that are appointed by them and time and time again point to that is a the problem. Kier starmer recent attack against a judge for doing his own rules correctly as dissappionting cased a extremely rare and public outcry against his blaming them for doing his own over the gaza/ukraine outcome

19

On the face of it, I agree. It’s much easier to get rid of those people than to have tax payers keep them going in prison. However, if someone becomes deeply troubled and want to take their own life but can’t, could this lead to more people doing these sorts of crimes as a way of getting legal death that they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to? Also with this is it leaning and becoming corrupt, sure, there would be a public vote on it, but what if the “100% evidence” is fabricated? or hushed as a form of removing someone? I think it may just become a dangerous power those with authority misuse.

20

We all have said this at some point in our lifes or not , its freedom of speech " they need hanging" " hang, drawn and quartered" " their appendages needs removing" (being polite on that one) ect
ect


I do believe that we do need to talk more on strengthening our current laws and justice system on all matters of law IE a Doge of some sort.

It is a difficult decision to end ones life especially in regarding beliefs but The Great British people/citizen need to not use religion/culture/age to escape this difficult discussion and responsibilities. My opinion.

Using your example on Alex ,as you all know Alex took 3 beautiful defenseless children lives and life changing injuries/mental health to other children, adults and families who had witnessed. Wether it’s children or adults, It’s an horrific and I can not understand or feel what they are going though as it’s for the rest of their lives. Now, realities of Alex he has previous caution/known with the law (i could be wrong but I believe ) Alex planned this terrorism act. Alex’s flat had homemade/ingredients(Ricin)/type of religious/beliefs book’s/computer searched. what else was Alex’s planning ?

I agree with you, it has to be 100 % guilty, deemed guilty by law, all aspects of evidence/findings against them. I can’t agree or disagree on pleading guilty or not guilty because if your remorseful and at fault then you plead guilty or not guilty if your innocent or think innocent.There should be a process to end of life due to horrific crimes , if this considered.

We have to learn from other countries or previous countries or our own previous laws about the end of life sentence because it can be some consequences if the person or persons are innocent ( framed so to speak)

A person in prison with a horrid crimes committed ,that’s in prison for the rest of their life. That could be 30-40-50 plus years on Taxes payer money. I do not know the yearly cost for one person but I am betting it’s extremely high.

My suggestion is 3rd party to make these decisions because who would we give responsibility and trust too. Not the government and not the king.

Off subject ( kind off)
Now think of other issue we are facing, the homeless veterans, the veterans that fought for king and our country. I would like that money to be spent on them, not extreme criminals. Plus there is so many issues we a facing in this country that could do with that money.

So, this is my own thoughts and opinions, I’m not racist, we are not the same idea thinking. I respect your opinion and values, so respect mine.

My Blessings to you all.

At Mr Ben Habib finding recently, there is a treaty between United Kingdom and Pakistan which was done in 2018. Now that’s an eye opener and a good place to start a policy discussion and possible review on our current situation.