The sentence handed out in a murder case is individual and based on the circumstances of the case. There are already degrees of murder to that extent. In all murder cases, however, the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. And yet there are still miscarriages of justice. If those (innocent) people have been shown 'beyond reasonable doubt' to be guilty of murder, how do you propose we avoid hanging innocent people if your plan for the reintroduction of the death penalty is successful?

And that's without considering:

1) the trustworthiness of the police. I can entirely understand why police would, in horrific cases, be so determined to bring a killer to book that they'd bend the rules if they thought that they had the right person and could only get them that way, but we know precisely where that leads. And that's without going down the route of discussing a case such as that of Daniel Morgan;

2) DNA evidence is not 100% effective'

3) the ethical question of why, if the taking of life is such a serious crime, it becomes acceptable for the state to do exactly that.

If anyone missed the original screening on Question Time of Priti ("it really is") Patel debating the death penalty with Ian Hislop, then it's well worth searching the two names on youtube

"Ian Hislop explains Capital Punishment to an Idiot."

A pretty fair and succinct summation.

The major problem is she is a member of our legislature, not only that, she's also marked as a rising star among Camoron's coterie

I would not mind seeing more of her she is quite priti

God made him think it.

Are you really so shallow?

Interestingly there have been a few occasions over here of late, where a person has punched someone in a fight, who has fallen, smashed their head on the pavement and died.

Also, If someone went out to just give someone a little "slap" as a warning without any intention other than to fire off a warning shot and they cracked their head and died. What happens then Petrocelli?

..