In the case of Lee Rigby's killers executing them would give them what they desire above all else -
Martyrdom. Your example is a fairly poor one, likely blinded by the desire for vengeance. That is precisely what the Jihadists want, to sink to their level of brutality. We are better than that.
If somebody is wrongly convicted of a crime, they at least have a chance to clear their name and rebuild a life. They wouldn't be able to do that if they were wrongly convicted of murder as they would be dead and buried by the time the truth becomes known. It happens in the US far too often.
The number 1 reason as to why we have lighter sentences is down to lack of prison spaces and the lack of political will to build new prisons and enforce the laws as they should be. Which costs money and if you've not been paying attention there is a crisis developing in the Justice system in England and Wales due to cuts to legal aid and other factors.
Example - The Secret Barrister on Twitter
Nope. An obvious example. Committed murder, no doubt of who did it. If they wanted it as well, so what? They could pull the lever themself. Job jobbed.
Poor example. Unlike them and their system they were given a fair trial. In fact one was still given a defence when he didn't want it. Justice still happens. Our system of justice isn't brutal.
If. So don't use the death sentence if there is doubt. There will still be the option of life imprisonment. The reason why death sentences still come up is a view that life doesn't mean life. Make that happen and most will be happy.
So still use jail if there's doubt.
No problem, cut foreign aid, the huge benefits system, raise taxes, whatever.
And if they refuse to pull the lever ? Then what would you do ? Also I doubt terrorists would pull a lever to kill themselves as that would be suicide and has a different set of rules to Jihad.
No, it doesn't matter if they were shot dead by the police or found guilty and sentenced to death using a Western Justice system. The end result is they are still killed by the Infidels and thus Martyrdom is assured. By the time that pair do die, they will most likely have been forgotten by then. That's a fate worse than death for a terrorist, to be forgotten entirely.
Someone else pull it, pretty sure in the 21st century it could be automated. Pretty sure you'd get a fair few volunteers as well.
Never heard of suicide bombers?
If you believe in such a thing. Those who admire such an action will admire them anyway, those who don't, won't.
Other than a tiny minority of extremely rare cases, what would that accomplish ?
There would still be the vast majority casesincluding those of mass murderers that did not quite meet the criteria.
Who sets the criteria and who determines if a case meets it ?
What if there is even a slight variance between different judges, never mind the public as to what counts as no doubt.
We already have reasonable doubt - and convictions for all murderers are based upon the duty of the prosecution to prove the defendants guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Beyond reasonable doubt being the point at which a reasonable person has no reasonable doubt of defendants guilt.
I suggest trying to actually come up with a fair codification of what is `no doubt of who did it`, how to test for it and how to distinguish and separate it in a meaningful and practical way from `the beyond reasonable doubt` of any conviction.
I believe you(anyone) will really struggle to achieve such a task.
Death sentence for some, life for others. Job jobbed.
I find it a little disturbing how some on here find it so easy to have people killed. I do not think anyone has the right to kill anyone else. maybe a rule should be employed that if you sentence someone to death only for them to be found not guilty a member of the judges family should be killed, see how many are keen to back there judgements.
And maybe every time someone reoffends those not backing harsher sentences are also punished?
They can't reoffend if they're serving a whole life term.
I severely doubt you or most people who support the death penalty would consider it `job jobbed`in reality.
By that, I mean as soon as someone who you(or anyone else) believes is guilty without any doubt and deserves the death penalty doesn't get it because the judge and/or legal system's criteria or interpretation of the criteria for a death sentence is fractionally more strict than yours.
Again, it is one thing to have an idealised version of how things will work, but in practice and reality they rarely if ever do.
The nuances of life, human behaviour and subtle differences in each and every unique set of events means that it is extremely difficult and infact neigh on impossible to codify a set of rules and regulations that account for the same, equal and/or fair results for every possible situation.
IF the rules and regulations are codified to err on the side of caution then there will be cases where many people are convinced of someones guilty and deserving of the death penalty that don't get it.
IF the rules and regulations are codified to err on the side of passing the death sentence on as cases people believe are deserving of it, then we will be in the situation of questioning `no doubt` and that wouldn't fit what you propose in your argument.
Who would such a system satisfy - I propose no one.
Those that support the death penalty would feel cheated when a case that they believes deserves it doesn't get it.
Families of victims would feel cheated when their case doesn't get the death penalty but a near identical case does - or one defendant gets the death penalty and another doesn't.
If we had a magic wand that allowed us to both identify absolute guilt and absolute deserving of such punishment due to the defendant being of sound mind, yet still terrible enough to commit abhorrent crimes with malice of forethought and would do so again, then maybe we could consider that the death penalty for no doubt cases was plausible.
However, in the real world, with human biases and errors, there is no real agreement on either at what point counts as `no doubt`, but also what qualifies for deserving* or not.
* Is someone who commits such an atrocious crime not automatically considered to be mentally `not normal` ?
What makes someone with schizophrenia in one case worthy of the death penalty while in another treated in a mental institution ?