Yes, but the victim’s family should decide the punishment

Revenge isn't Justice. Allowing victims to determine the punishment is a terrible idea on top of the overwhelming arguments against the death penalty.

Usually the accused hasn’t admitted guilt and you could be killing an innocent person. The family should not get to choose as they are personally involved in the outcome and will want to see the accused suffer, without giving it proper thought a judge who has no emotional relation to the case should decide not the family

Well i do not agree with the death penalty as this implies the justice system is completely accurate and is due to get the right victim each time. the system often targets minorities aswell as those in the lower echelons of society , giving harder punishments for lesser crime.

Punishments should be decided by an unbiased party. 'Punishments' should be focused on rehabilitation.

The victim's family will be extremely driven by emotion- if applied to a smaller crime such as theft, there is a chance that the victim and their family would choose a very extreme punishment purely because they have an attachment to the case. Impartiality is necessary in choosing an appropriate punishment.

We need a justice system and allowing greiving members of a family to inflict pain or provide sentancing could lead to unfair sentancing without logic whilst using emotion only. People don't think clear when emotion is evolved. You need an out-sider.

The family of a victim will inevitably be over emotional and unable to make a rational decision about said punishment. Someone or someones who can be as objective, rather than subjective, as possible should be making the decisions.

Just because your family member was a victim it does not mean that you have better judgement that others. Once you decide that someone deserves to die you are a murderer.

Two wrongs don't make a right, eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, also far too big of a risk of killing an innocent person.

Death penalties are the sign of a society which has failed its citizens through inadequate policing, justice systems and sentencing. Effective justice should seek, where possible, to balance public protection against rehabilitation of offenders. Victim's families are of course impacted, however a role for them in sentencing would drastically undermine its consistency and public trust.

Death should never be a punishment, a lifetime in prison is far worse. You still lose your life you just have to watch it happen

Law is complex and punishments have real consequences on real people. They should be decided by experienced Judges.

The death penalty is a disgraceful act. Having to choose life and death puts people in a terrible position of power. What if this person is actually innocent? It would be a massive irreversible injustice.

It depends on the circumstances, accidents happen, I agree some punishments should be harsher but we are not the law we should not have a say. Being lead by emotions is dangerous.

This is completely unfair to put on the family of the victim and the decision could haunt them forever.

Absolutely not as people can get weird with it and can really torture the person who committed the crime. Can be too hard on the family of the victim to lose someone then create a punishment

Every human has the right to life. That is a fact that cannot be compromised on. And an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

While it's understandable that some people might argue that the victim's family should have a say in the punishment, it's essential to consider the broader implications of this perspective. One of the fundamental principles of justice is the idea of impartiality and fairness. Allowing the victim's family to decide the punishment could introduce bias and emotional influence into the legal system.

We don't allow people who get robbed to go and engage in vigilante justice on the burglar because we recognise that humans can be massively vindictive people who don't act in the name of justice or fairness but in retribution and selfish, righteous anger.

Every individual has the right to life. Those who take it away should be punished severely but not with death.

Morals don't come into it. Whilst the UK has an effective criminal justice system, it isn't perfect. We can as good as guarantee that someone innocent will be killed by the state.

This is a popular trial it would give too much place to revenge in the debate. The unfair act of giving death should not be punished by an unfair revenge

The victim's family are not an impartial party to make that decision and should also not bear the responsibility if the defendant has been falsely accused.

Arbitrary punishments decided for by individuals is no way to run a justice system. It allows for people to be punished not based on the severity of the crime but on the whim of an individual. And who in the family decides do they vote?

No body deserves to die. If someone has committed a crime that is serious enough for death, they must need help mentally not just death.

the victims family will be extremely biased based on the situation, as they will be angry about what has happened so they are more likely to act rashly. i think that the death penalty shouldnt be used at all!

If we allow the victim’s family to decide the punishment then the accused might as well already be given the death penalty, the victim’s family wouldn’t be a to make a biased opinion and that is what the accused deserves someone who doesn’t know him someone that will make a decision not on the fact they were the accused friend in primary school not someone that know the person that accused (insert accused crime here), the fact that the person passing judge only make their decision based on the facts not on their personal feelings.

Allowing those with a personal attachment to the victim to decide the fate of the accused would necessarily lead to passion taking a place of superiority over reason. The Death Penalty should be abolished, not used as a coping mechanism for the bereaved family of the victim. Murderous individuals should be removed from society, but their lives should not be taken by the state or anyone else.

Families of victims are in no sense qualified to make such a decision, and woefully biased, so this would be a ludicrous system.

No one should decide to give the death penalty, however the victims family should be able to decide punishments other than the death penalty.

People shouldn't have a easy way out, ask in the past people have been proven innocent after conviction.

Absolutely not - there must be a standard to which every person is punished and those who have a personal connection to a crime will not be able to act with impartiality and objectivity. Emotion should play no part in the sentencing of offenders.

I think all the victims familys should choose the punishement. it should not be up to a judge or a courthouse.

Whilst punishment of violent offenders is for public protection, ultimately the victim's family are the ones left with the most suffering. They deserve the option to choose how best to heal, whether that's through forgiveness or death.

A jury should decide as the victim's family would always make the decision based on their emotions at the time. It should depend of the individual circumstances, for example, if an accident had occurred.

Too much emotion from victims families, and they cannot be objective. There has been cases of wrong convictions and death penalty would undoubtedly go up if victims families were to decide on outcome.

When in distress you don't have a good judgement and it is completely possible the family will regret their decision or think they were too harsh which can make their mental state worse

Killing is never right, no matter the circumstances... a life in a small jail cell is more punishment than a quick death.

They could have irrational thoughts, the crime could've been an accident or one off, not intentional

Justic should be the same for all, and the victims family is not objective in there responce or wish. One person should not be in the postion to decided if another lives or dies.

However if the question was "should the victims family be able to resind a death penelty that has been handed out i would have a different respond. While i dont agree with the death penealty in general I can see the value of allow a family to be "merciful" and be the ones to decided if they feel that the death penalty is required or serves justice

No one should take another humans life, if they are a murdered then taking that persons life will make us no better than them.

State sanctioned murder is exactly what it says it is. We need to re assess our whole justice system and invest in rehabilitation.

Ultimately if you have wronged someone if the punishment fits the crime then the victims should be allowed to decide the punishment.

Because revenge and justice are not interchangeable and that is what a victim's family are more likely to be after.

I think it’s fair, for one who has had someone taken away, or had something done to them without control to have the right ti regain control over that aspect and decide what should happen to the convicted, just as the convicted did to their family member.

The family may not be in the best frame of mind to answer the question, they may regret their decision if it is made in favour of the death penalty being issued.

Victim's families are going to be biased, where the justice system will be able to provide more consistent and fair punishments.

Victim's family are not the judge, jury nor executioner. Victim's family does not decide the law, they must accept the ruling within the confines of our law system.

everyone deserves a fair trial. and even though legally they are guilty; in vary rare cases people have been proven innocent after being on the death penalty

because they are emotional and if they were in the other position they wouldnt want the decision to be emotional

It’s impossible to appreciate the pain the victims family must be going through but that is precisely why they shouldn’t be involved. Imagine they decide to execute someone who is later found to be innocent. Surely that would increase their pain still further.

Bias, no impartial decision making. Takes away from the integrity of courts. Individual differences for different families, who all have different opinions. Inconsistent sentencing.

Re-introducing the death penalty is a step backwards because as much as you may be hurting, it makes you just as bad as an eye for an eye makes everyone blind. Statistics show that it isn't a deterrent in other countries like the USA.

A conviction could later be proven to have been false and the wrong person has been wrongly sent to death for a crime they didn't commit. No systems are 100% flawless and the justice system is no different.

The victims family are irrelevant to legal procedure beyond the consideration of damages to be awarded in a civil circumstance.

The State should not use death as a punishment of crime. This would not reflect my position regarding the kind of society I wish to live in.

A family of the victim can make no subjective decision on a punishment, they're decision will be clouded by emotion and will not follow the rationale of our judiciary processes.

Too many people are wrongly convinced. There have been too many cases where the truth was revealed as news came to light 10 years later! You can pull them out of prison and apologise at the least, you can't bring them back to life.

It would be too easy for them to choose a harsher punishment than what is necessary due to the emotional toll they would/have been going through.

The victim's family would be biased and possibly impose a stricter punishment based on their state of distress. It is more fair to both parties, if the punishment is decided by a jury and judge.

I would only agree with this if the punishment was reviewed every 3 years as initially someone may want to give a harsh punishment but as they begin to heal from the tragedy, they may see things in better perspective

Though it could lead to anarchy, the justice system can be too objective at times, perhaps neglecting the emotional trauma caused by a convicts crime, in favour of sentencing based solely on the physical crimes and who's physical effected not the mental aspect.

Nobody has the right to take life and most people are not emotionally equipped to make the decision to take someone's life

You're letting a subjective party to decide the punishment of someone who must've committed some dire,heinous crime to even receive the death penalty.

We already have whole life orders, the death penalty is inhumane, an eye for an eye is an outdated viewpoint.

the rule of law should remain emotionless high flying emotions doesn’t give good outcomes have to deal with facts and are we just the same if we give someone death ? i don’t know it’s difficult

It's a ridiculous argument that brings too much emotion to such a serious decision. The decision should be made rationally, not emotionally

I don't think they should do the death penalty but give their point of view of what they think the person deserves

Family’s of victims should not be allowed to choose the punishments as they will want revenge on this person which gives an easy way out

You can judge the civilisation of a country by how it treats those who do wrong.
Victims families are rightly emotional, but we should aim at a rational system. Otherwise, punishment would be based on the the whim of the family rather than the crime committed.

It’s not right to take the life of another regardless of their crime. Two wrongs do not make a right.

If the case of Richard speck isn’t enough to tell you everything. Look at the quote from the video of him in his correctional facility, smoking a joint, drinking alcohol and engaging in sexual activities with other inmates while he says “if they knew how much fun I was having in here they’d turn me loose” this man killed multiple innocent women who devoted their lives to helping other people and had them cut short whilst he lived his best life. Prison sentences aren’t long enough or miserable enough to compensate for their crimes and so the victims should be able to decide what should be taken to equate what’s been taken from them.

Punishment should be to decentivise crimes and facilitate rehabilitation, not as vengeance for the victims

We have a legal system and we are a democracy. Every person has the right to a fair trial and justice procedure.

The victim's families within a situation will be unable to make a decision that is not riddled with emotion and emotion should have no place in determination of a punishment.

The victim's family will be guided by hate and grief initially and might regret being responsible for the death of a human being in the long run.

Are they then not allowing murder and are they not responsible for that murder and should then be prosecuted

The death penalty should never be an option. People often underestimate how absurdly expensive death row proceedings (in the United States for example) actually become. These costs are necessary to reduce wrongful convictions, and trying to cut costs in death row proceedings would inevitably increase the number of wrongful convictions. You can release a wrongfully convicted prisoner from jail, you cannot bring them back to life.

Once a person convicted by the state has been killed, if they are later proven to have been wrongly convicted there is no compensation adequate to the situation.

That’s not fair to the perpetrator as decisions on the outcomes on people’s lives should not be in the hands of emotionally charged individuals. Not a fair trial

Same as you don't drive home from a driving test, families are in no position to make huge decisions on somebody's life when under so much emotional turbulence.

God gives life and decides when it is our time. This is why we detest one individual committing murder...how is it different if the state do this too?

The law should be impartial, including sentencing. The victim's family are the most emotionally invested and cannot be impartial. It may also be cruel to drag the victim's family through the ordeal to craft an 'ideal' sentence.

What if they are not guilty? There are too many complexities and this can encourage violence, or power trips.

no one should be killed for their actions, they should simply be punished and put away for life. they’ll suffer more in a cell for the rest of their life than dead where the pain is gone immediately

In extreme cases of multiple murder, there is potentially an argument for the death penalty. However, largely speaking, the purpose of sentences should be rehabilitation rather than retribution. It is impossible to rehabilitate the dead.

No, I think if you have lost a family member you will not be in a state of mind to decide a punishment fairly. The system is built so that the punishment should match the crime which is what should happen.

That would be revenge, not justice. The whole point of a legal system is to try to remove subjectivity.

I personally think emotive decision making cannot be the reason a punishment is given as they could be supporting a mass murderer and not know it themselves. It’s always best if the death penalty was reintroduced that they have sufficient evidence to do so. Based on events in recent times with all the technology in hand they still come to incorrect verdicts a lot or inconclusive. So a lot of work would need to be done.

There is no justification for the death penalty. Decision made by the victims family will be revenge driven rather than true justice.

I believe that this is an unfair argument due to the bias against the defendent, this would also undermine our justice system (jury's), and would create unreliable legislation for simmilar cases in the future.