B1249 - Capital Punishment Reintroduction Bill 2017 Watch

This discussion is closed.
cranbrook_aspie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1

B1249 - Capital Punishment Reintroduction Bill 2017, TSR Conservative and Unionist Party

A

BILL

TO



Make provision for the reintroduction of capital punishment for murder with intent, terrorism and treason against the Crown.




B1249 - Capital Punishment Reintroduction Bill 2017, TSR Conservative and Unionist Party
BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1: Capital Punishment
(1) Capital punishment will be reintroduced as a possible sentence for the following crimes:
(a) Treason, and;
(b) Terrorism, and;
(i) Terrorists may only be executed after intelligence agencies are confident that all usable information has been extracted from said person.
(c) Murder with express malice aforethought.
(i) A defenant cannot be sentenced to death if the jury of their peers deliver a majority verdict. A unanimous verdict is required for execution to be considered.

2: Methods of Capital Punishment
(1) Those sentenced to death by the presiding judge(s) can be executed by the following methods:
(a) Hanging by the neck until dead, and;
(b) Death by firing squad.

3: Sentencing Procedure
(1) The Sentencing Council will revise the sentencing guidelines to account for change in set out s1(1).
(2) An appeal can be made within a period of one month, if one fails to appeal within such time will be ineligible to do so unless the courts have given exceptional leave to appeal as permitted in the Criminal Procedure Rules.

4: Citation and Commencement:
(1) This act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.
(2) This act will come into force upon Royal Assent.
(3) This act may be cited as the Capital Punishment Reintroduction Act 2017.
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Nay. Capital punishment does not act as an effective deterrent, does not permit rehabilitation, and always brings a risk of executing an innocent person. I urge the House to vote against this Bill.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
The Deputy Speaker emitted to adding the notes to the bottom so I shall do so here:

Spoiler:
Show


This bill will reintroduce execution as a valid method of punishing the most serious crimes: murder (with express malice aforethought), treason and terrorism. These are some of the most serious crimes and the Conservatives feel that many criminals that commit them cannot be rehabilitated therefore it's a waste of money to try. David Muhlhausen, PhD, stated in his 2004 article, "Capital Punishment works: it deters crime" that some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties – up to and including life sentences or even death.

Though, it can be argued that execution costs a lot but the cost to keep an inmate in prison for an extended period of time which is common amongst these crimes can amount to as nearly as much as execution, excluding any potential medical treatment that may be required.



(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Nay. Capital punishment does not act as an effective deterrent, does not permit rehabilitation, and always brings a risk of executing an innocent person. I urge the House to vote against this Bill.
It is the view of the Conservative Party that capital punishment is a necessary evil and that these crimes are so wrong that rehabilitation is not always possible. Sections within this bill make it so that the amount of innocent people being executed are limited to the bare minimum. Even with jail sentences, there is always a chance an innocent person may be imprisoned and that also often takes up much of their life which can be just as bad as execution. It will also be allowed for defendants to appeal their death sentence but this must be done within a month with plausible evidence that they could be innocent and if this is accepted, the case will be revisited.
0
thotproduct
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Bit medieval, don't you think?

If you're going to reintroduce it, at least somewhat modernise it.

It would be way more efficient for a lethal injection or an Electric Chair
(Although there have been instances where lethal injections have gone off)
(But then again there was Wenselao Moguel)
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
The Deputy Speaker emitted to adding the notes to the bottom so I shall do so here:

Spoiler:
Show



This bill will reintroduce execution as a valid method of punishing the most serious crimes: murder (with express malice aforethought), treason and terrorism. These are some of the most serious crimes and the Conservatives feel that many criminals that commit them cannot be rehabilitated therefore it's a waste of money to try. David Muhlhausen, PhD, stated in his 2004 article, "Capital Punishment works: it deters crime" that some crimes are so heinous and inherently wrong that they demand strict penalties – up to and including life sentences or even death.

Though, it can be argued that execution costs a lot but the cost to keep an inmate in prison for an extended period of time which is common amongst these crimes can amount to as nearly as much as execution, excluding any potential medical treatment that may be required.






It is the view of the Conservative Party that capital punishment is a necessary evil and that these crimes are so wrong that rehabilitation is not always possible. Sections within this bill make it so that the amount of innocent people being executed are limited to the bare minimum. Even with jail sentences, there is always a chance an innocent person may be imprisoned and that also often takes up much of their life which can be just as bad as execution. It will also be allowed for defendants to appeal their death sentence but this must be done within a month with plausible evidence that they could be innocent and if this is accepted, the case will be revisited.
Would the honourable member care to confirm how many innocent people being executed he sees as an acceptable number?
0
Paracosm
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
Nope.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
Just in case one of the people who hasn't bothered reading the European Convention on Human Rights fails to do so: but the ECHR means we can't!
1
Joel 96
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
It worked as a deterrent. Anyone who's read the research would know this.
Aye.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Would the honourable member care to confirm how many innocent people being executed he sees as an acceptable number?
I would not like to estimate at all. It is my view that our honourable Judges will do all in their power to direct the jury in an appropriate way in order to ensure that an innocent man is not executed. However, I have accounted for this and have included an appeal where an appeal can be made and the case will be revisited after such an appeal is made.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
Why is it only for murder that a unanimous agreement has to be made, why is it that for terrorism and treason a simple majority is sufficient?
0
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Joel 96)
It worked as a deterrent. Anyone who's read the research would know this.
Aye.
Well this is either wildly misguided or a barefaced lie. The vast majority of research indicates that it has little to no deterrent effect.
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
Absolutely not!! Not only is hanging a bit barbaric but killing people is pointless.

I don't view terrorism or treason as crimes in their own right so I object purely on the basis.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Why is it only for murder that a unanimous agreement has to be made, why is it that for terrorism and treason a simple majority is sufficient?
It is the view of the Conservative Party that less mistakes are likely to be made as there may potentially be with murder.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
It is the view of the Conservative Party that less mistakes are likely to be made as there may potentially be with murder.
So it's an arbitrary decision. If not, on what basis can you be so massively confident that you would remove between several effective vetoes?
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
I'm not overly concerned about the method of hanging being used since visiting the hanging room in a former prison, but I remain concerned about the impossibility of justice for the wrongly convicted. The risk of a wrong conviction can never be zero unless you don't convict anyone at all.
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
So it's an arbitrary decision. If not, on what basis can you be so massively confident that you would remove between several effective vetoes?
You are correct.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
username2718212
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I'm not overly concerned about the method of hanging being used since visiting the hanging room in a former prison, but I remain concerned about the impossibility of justice for the wrongly convicted. The risk of a wrong conviction can never be zero unless you don't convict anyone at all.
I note the right honourable members concern. And I wholeheartedly agree. It would be most unfortunate that one would be unjustly executed and this is why the appeal has been included to ensure that the amount of innocent people being executed can be cut to a minimum. It is an ugly thing but we must act. We cannot be indecisive in dealing out justice and I hope the right honourable gentleman will support the Conservative Party in this endeavour and if he so wishes, he may contact me to discuss possible changes so that we could further reduce the possibility of innocent people being executed.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
I'm not overly concerned about the method of hanging being used since visiting the hanging room in a former prison, but I remain concerned about the impossibility of justice for the wrongly convicted. The risk of a wrong conviction can never be zero unless you don't convict anyone at all.
Hanging is only a problem if you have a **** executioner, it's a very fast and reliable method.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Wilhuff Tarkin)
You are correct.
Arbitrarily having some as simple majority is concerning, and you're skirting around the ECHR point.
0
JMR2019.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Arbitrarily having some as simple majority is concerning, and you're skirting around the ECHR point.
We are leaving the ECHR, no?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your AQA A-level Chemistry Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (289)
31.86%
The paper was reasonable (436)
48.07%
Not feeling great about that exam... (109)
12.02%
It was TERRIBLE (73)
8.05%

Watched Threads

View All