Death Penalty

[Apple OC]

I say they should take a secret vote on whether people support the death penalty or not ... when the votes are in ... make the people that don't support it pay for the incarceration of the vermin that deserve it.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Apple OC

I say they should take a secret vote on whether people support the death penalty or not ... when the votes are in ... make the people that don't support it pay for the incarceration of the vermin that deserve it.

Execution is more expensive.

[Scepticalscribe]

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

The sentencing system for murder in the UK is actually excellent - something other countries should follow. Unfortunately, the Daily Mail lot completely misunderstand and yell stupid things like "life should mean life". Allow me to explain:

Murder is a much wider crime under English law than most people think. We don't have degrees of murder - just one crime. So it covers a lot of situations (see my post at 107 above - all the examples are murder) but lets take two examples-

(a) Mr A abducts tortures and brutally kills Mr B. That's clearly murder, does he deserve to go to prison for the rest of his life? Well it's quite reasonable to say yes in my opinion.

(b) Mr C gets into an argument with Mr D. He losses his temper and starts a nasty fight. In hospital a doctor gives Mr D a drug he is allergic to, and for that reason he dies. That's murder , but does Mr C really deserve to go to prison for the rest of his life? I'd say no.

So both examples above lead to a murder conviction - people always forget murder does not require an intent to kill.

Under the English system both Mr A and Mr C get life sentences - that is the only sentence for murder. When I get to this point in the argument most people say "well change the system to allow a judge to sentence Mr C to 10, 15, 20 years etc" - but they miss the good part of the UK system...

The judge may hand down a life sentence in both cases, but also specifies a minimum term. This is the minimum amount of time the defendant must serve before eligible for release. In the case of Mr A this could be a "whole life order" where it really does mean life. With Mr C it could be 10 years (or whatever) - but this does not mean Mr C will be released then, only that he can be.

If after 10 years Mr C released he is not 'free' - he is on licence and will be subject to restrictions and monitoring. Mr C may not deserve to be in prison for life, but he still made a serious error of judgment, so he isn't just let out. Common requirements may be meeting a probation officer regularly, not being able to associate with certain people, not being able to move house without notifying the authorities, no going abroad etc. If Mr C breaks a term of the licence or is implicated in a crime he can be immediately recalled to prison (my wife works in criminal justice - her record for recalling someone to prison is 2 hrs after finding out about about a breach). Over time and as trust is built the restrictions can be reduced.

The point is the UK system allows life long monitoring and restriction with real teeth - an ability to recall someone to prison years after release. That's why handing out life sentences to every murderer is so useful. It's also incredibly successful - do you know how many people in the UK are 're-convicted' of murder (or manslaughter) each year (ie kill, serve time, are released, then kill again)? Around three, just three.

Another excellent, thoughtful, informed and intelligent post. Thank you for taking the trouble to make these points.

[Apple OC]

Originally Posted by skunk

Execution is more expensive.

you are correct ... with all the useless appeals for the guilty (costs can sky rocket)

that needs fixing also.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Apple OC

you are correct ... with all the useless appeals for the guilty (costs can sky rocket)

that needs fixing also.

The road block to ending appeals for the "guilty" are all of the number of convictions that have been overturned because of things like DNA evidence and such.

Our system is imperfect and until it is shown is isn't, there are always going to be appeals.

[Mac'nCheese]

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

(b) Mr C gets into an argument with Mr D. He losses his temper and starts a nasty fight. In hospital a doctor gives Mr D a drug he is allergic to, and for that reason he dies. That's murder , but does Mr C really deserve to go to prison for the rest of his life? I'd say no.

So both examples above lead to a murder conviction - people always forget murder does not require an intent to kill.

In no way is B murder. Murder does require an intent to kill, by all definitions. The term manslaughter is used when there isn't intent to kill.

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by Mac'nCheese

In no way is B murder. Murder does require an intent to kill, by all definitions. The term manslaughter is used when there isn't intent to kill.

The English law definition of murder is unlawful killing with malice aforethought. The 'mens rea' (the mental element of the crime) is intent to kill or cause serious harm. This has been settled law for many, many years.

Manslaughter is more complex than what you suggest, at least here in the UK.

(Note my whole post was on defending the UK sentencing scheme for murder, so that's why I based the examples on English law).

[Don't panic]

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

The English law definition of murder is unlawful killing with malice aforethought. The 'mens rea' (the mental element of the crime) is intent to kill or cause serious harm. This has been settled law for many, many years.

Manslaughter is more complex than what you suggest, at least here in the UK.

(Note my whole post was on defending the UK sentencing scheme for murder, so that's why I based the examples on English law).

still, in your example the death is brought along by a doctor's mistake.
not only there was no intent to kill, but the perp int he scenario didn't actually kill the guy. the doctor did (by mistake, obviously).
i agree with the reasoning behind your post, but i do thing you used a poor specific example. substitute that scenario with one that is a more proper 'manslaughter' case, and the it works.

as for the death penalty: 100% against, in all cases.

it is ineffective, unjust and miseducative.
and recognized as such for 250 years

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by Don't panic

still, in your example the death is brought along by a doctor's mistake.
not only there was no intent to kill, but the perp int he scenario didn't actually kill the guy. the doctor did (by mistake, obviously).
i agree with the reasoning behind your post, but i do thing you used a poor specific example. substitute that scenario with one that is a more proper 'manslaughter' case, and the it works.

My example is based on a real English law cases. The lack of intent to kill is I irrelevant - as I said murder only requires intent to cause serious harm (R v Vickers).

As for the doctor example - I choose that carefully. Under English law the defendant must be the cause of the victim's death - but 'causation' has been discussed extensively and a good body of case law has been established. The doctor is an 'act by a third party' situation. Case law has heard that incorrect medical treatment does not 'break the chain of causation' unless it is very seriously negligent. See - R v Cheshire (1991), R v Smith (1959).

Provided the defendant's action was still an 'operating and substantial cause' (but this does not mean sole or main cause) at the time of death then negligence by a third party does not break the chain of causation.

The point I am trying to make is that is it is 'easier' to commit murder than many people realise - it's a very wide crime. I wanted to come up with two examples of murder - one classic cop-drama-over-the-top-evil-murder, and one that people would be surprised to learn is murder (which from the responses they are!).

Like I said before, manslaughter under English law is quite complex (there are two main types, and then subtypes). It's not just murder-without-the-intent crime that many mistake it for.

[tekno]

Originally Posted by Squilly

Are you for or against the death penalty?

In extreme cases, I'm for it.

But I think the death penalty shouldn't be about punishment or retribution, but purely to remove someone who has shown they can't live in a civilised society. In my opinion, putting someone in prison when they'll never, ever be released is incredibly cruel and pointless. Instead, when there is NO doubt of their crimes, they should be quietly put to sleep.

[zin]

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

(a) Mr A abducts tortures and brutally kills Mr B. That's clearly murder, does he deserve to go to prison for the rest of his life? Well it's quite reasonable to say yes in my opinion.

But he is likely to be eligible for early release after 15-30 years.

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

(b) Mr. C gets into an argument with Mr. D. He losses his temper and starts a nasty fight. In hospital a doctor gives Mr D a drug he is allergic to, and for that reason he dies. That's murder , but does Mr. C really deserve to go to prison for the rest of his life? I'd say no.

So both examples above lead to a murder conviction - people always forget murder does not require an intent to kill.

Under English law, murder is defined as an intent to kill. The doctor nor Mr. C did not murder him, since they had no intent to cause harm, nor did they know it would happen.

In England something called mens rea is required in order to suffice a sentence of murder, which basically means malice aforethought. By the same logic, the doctor did not kill his patient; the drug did. If, however, the allergy was already known but the doctor overlooked it, or failed to check for it, then he can still be sentenced, but not for murder, more likely involuntary manslaughter. Mr. C nor the doctor played no part in any murder, since none took place, and Mr. C nor the doctor had any malice aforethought with regards to Mr. D.

Mr. C may think he is to blame or he may think he murdered Mr. D, but under English law he didn't.

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by zin

But he is likely to be eligible for early release after 15-30 years.

Not if he is given a whole life order.

Under English law, murder is defined as an intent to kill. The doctor nor Mr. C did not murder him, since they had no intent to cause harm, nor did they know it would happen.

I have studied law in England, and am now in a law firm (although admittedly not as a criminal lawyer). I'm afraid your definition of murder is incorrect. The mens rea is intent to kill or cause serious harm (sometimes referred to as intent to cause GBH). R v Vickers (1957) clearly sets that out and it is a case every law student will learn when studying criminal law.

Knowledge that a cause of action would lead to death is not a requirement.

In England something called mens rea is required in order to suffice a sentence of murder, which basically means malice aforethought.

From my background above I know what the mens rea is (even if my iPhone thinks I want to say men's tea). It is indeed malice aforethought but, as case law has held, that does not require an intent to kill.

By the same logic, the doctor did not kill his patient; the drug did. If, however, the allergy was already known but the doctor overlooked it, or failed to check for it, then he can still be sentenced, but not for murder, more likely involuntary manslaughter.

I want suggesting the doctor was guilty of a crime - I wasn't intending to portray him as being criminally negligent (ie gross negligence manslaughter) merely tortuous negligence.

Mr. C nor the doctor played no part in any murder, since none took place, and Mr. C nor the doctor had any malice aforethought with regards to Mr. D.

I disagree. Mr C had the mens rea as he (in my example) intended to cause serious harm. The negligence of the doctor was not sufficient (in my example) to break the chain of causation.

This is not a novel legal argument - the concept of (I) infliction of injury that could be treated (II) negligence by a doctor (III) death of the victim that would otherwise have been avoided, still being legal and factual causation is well established. See R v Cheshire (1991), R v Smith (1959). The chain of causation is only broken where medical negligence is extremely serious.

[zin]

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

Not if he is given a whole life order.

How likely is that?

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

I have studied law in England, and am now in a law firm (although admittedly not as a criminal lawyer). I'm afraid your definition of murder is incorrect. The mens rea is intent to kill or cause serious harm...

Knowledge that a cause of action would lead to death is not a requirement.

I'm not really sure I understand...

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

...malice aforethought

Okay, so do we agree that malice aforethought is basically a guilty state of mind before / during the crime, and mens rea is intent to kill and/or cause serious harm? You said earlier that, The English law definition of murder is unlawful killing with malice aforethought. The 'mens rea' (the mental element of the crime) is intent to kill or cause serious harm..

In which case I don't understand how your crime can be classified as murder without any intent to kill and/or cause serious harm, since malice aforethought and mens rea are required.

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by zin

Okay, so do we agree that malice aforethought is basically a guilty state of mind before / during the crime, and mens rea is intent to kill and/or cause serious harm? You said earlier that, The English law definition of murder is unlawful killing with malice aforethought. The 'mens rea' (the mental element of the crime) is intent to kill or cause serious harm..

In which case I don't understand how your crime can be classified as murder without any intent to kill and/or cause serious harm, since malice aforethought and mens rea are required.

Not quite - murder is a common law offence, there is no nice statute that has it written out in black and white. Over the years the most commonly accepted definition is from an academic (can't quite recall the guy's name - Cole, Coke ... something like that) which is essentially "unlawful killing with malice aforethought".

Unfortunately, that's not a very useful definition as "malice aforethought" is a rather clumsy phrase. Malice aforethought is the mens rea - but helpfully the courts have over the years given a nicer user-friendly definition of that phrase, which is "an intent to kill or cause serious harm".

So it goes like this:

The mens rea is required to commit murder (obviously) -> the mens rea is "malice aforethought" -> that means "an intention to kill or cause serious harm".

Someone shooting someone in the heart is clearly an intent to kill, someone shooting someone in the shoulder may not be (they may only intend to cause serious harm not death). So if the victim is (for example) a haemophiliac and dies that is still murder as there was an intention to cause serious harm.

[zin]

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

Not quite - murder is a common law offence, there is no nice statute that has it written out in black and white. Over the years the most commonly accepted definition is from an academic (can't quite recall the guy's name - Cole, Coke ... something like that) which is essentially "unlawful killing with malice aforethought".

Unfortunately, that's not a very useful definition as "malice aforethought" is a rather clumsy phrase. Malice aforethought is the mens rea - but helpfully the courts have over the years given a nicer user-friendly definition of that phrase, which is "an intent to kill or cause serious harm".

So it goes like this:

The mens rea is required to commit murder (obviously) -> the mens rea is "malice aforethought" -> that means "an intention to kill or cause serious harm".

Someone shooting someone in the heart is clearly an intent to kill, someone shooting someone in the shoulder may not be (they may only intend to cause serious harm not death). So if the victim is (for example) a haemophiliac and dies that is still murder as there was an intention to cause serious harm.

I see. I understand now.

However, I still don't see how Mr. C would be liable for murder.

The fact that Mr. D was able to walk away quite happily, even from the "nasty fight", and get some medicine doesn't, at least to me, suggest that serious bodily harm was caused. Or does "serious bodily harm" also include mental harm (Mr. D was immensely stressed, and so acquired medicine, the same medicine that killed him)?

In which case I would understand how Mr. C could be found liable, but I cannot find anything about "serious bodily harm" also including things such as mental health. The CPS website lists the requirements of GBH but all I can read is physical injuries.

Steering back on topic, though: I think that, with my confusion aside, life sentences should remain life for the definite cases of murder (e.g. scenario 1 in your original post). Early release is far too common in this country.

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by zin

I see. I understand now.

However, I still don't see how Mr. C would be liable for murder.

The fact that Mr. D was able to walk away quite happily, even from the "nasty fight", and get some medicine doesn't, at least to me, suggest that serious bodily harm was caused. Or does "serious bodily harm" also include mental harm (Mr. D was immensely stressed, and so acquired medicine, the same medicine that killed him)?

I apologise if my scenario was not clear - I wast trying to suggest a serious fight (not just a slap fight!). I was imagining Mr D requiring medical treatment (via an ambulance). That would be an intention to cause serious harm.

Steering back on topic, though: I think that, with my confusion aside, life sentences should remain life for the definite cases of murder (e.g. scenario 1 in your original post). Early release is far too common in this country.

There is no 'definite case of murder' only murder or not murder.

For the reasons in my first post on the topic I believe life sentences with a minimum term are excellent. I'd like to see life sentences mandatory for all the most serious crimes (rape, GBH with intent...). A Daily Mail type approach of "life means life" would seriously weaken the UK system, and reduce the ability to deal with serious offenders.

[yg17]

Originally Posted by tekno

In extreme cases, I'm for it.

But I think the death penalty shouldn't be about punishment or retribution, but purely to remove someone who has shown they can't live in a civilised society. In my opinion, putting someone in prison when they'll never, ever be released is incredibly cruel and pointless. Instead, when there is NO doubt of their crimes, they should be quietly put to sleep.

Theoretically, there is no doubt about the guilt of anyone in prison because juries are instructed to only convict if there's enough evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But investigators screw up, prosecutors screw up, defense attorneys screw up and juries screw up, hence why plenty of innocent people are in jail.

That's why the "execute anyone who we're 100% sure did it" argument doesn't make sense. If we're only 99% sure they did it, then they should never be in jail in the first place. If we're not sure enough of their guilt to execute them, then we're not sure enough of their guilt to convict them and lock them up. By saying "Oh, well we're not completely sure this guy did it, so we can't execute him", you're saying that there's reasonable doubt to his crimes and he should be free.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by zin

life sentences should remain life for the definite cases of murder (e.g. scenario 1 in your original post). Early release is far too common in this country.

You have to look at the evolution over time, as well as each state individually. There was a time back in 60's-70's when sentencing and enforcement were not very strong. In many states, things have changed, to the point where in some of the harshest states, there have been cases where people have gotten 25-to-life for shoplifting. (Long discussion of "three strikes" laws omitted here.)

Not to add to some of the confusion, but, not only are the definitions of "murder" and "manslaughter" different between the UK and the US, but, the subtleties of these definitions for lots of crimes differ state-to-state in the US, something you have to be aware of if you have served on a jury that went through the full trial. People sometimes lose sight of the fact that their particular state may be different from the next.

[yg17]

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

The sentencing system for murder in the UK is actually excellent - something other countries should follow. Unfortunately, the Daily Mail lot completely misunderstand and yell stupid things like "life should mean life". Allow me to explain:

Murder is a much wider crime under English law than most people think. We don't have degrees of murder - just one crime. So it covers a lot of situations (see my post at 107 above - all the examples are murder) but lets take two examples-

(a) Mr A abducts tortures and brutally kills Mr B. That's clearly murder, does he deserve to go to prison for the rest of his life? Well it's quite reasonable to say yes in my opinion.

(b) Mr C gets into an argument with Mr D. He losses his temper and starts a nasty fight. In hospital a doctor gives Mr D a drug he is allergic to, and for that reason he dies. That's murder , but does Mr C really deserve to go to prison for the rest of his life? I'd say no.

So both examples above lead to a murder conviction - people always forget murder does not require an intent to kill.

Under the English system both Mr A and Mr C get life sentences - that is the only sentence for murder. When I get to this point in the argument most people say "well change the system to allow a judge to sentence Mr C to 10, 15, 20 years etc" - but they miss the good part of the UK system...

The judge may hand down a life sentence in both cases, but also specifies a minimum term. This is the minimum amount of time the defendant must serve before eligible for release. In the case of Mr A this could be a "whole life order" where it really does mean life. With Mr C it could be 10 years (or whatever) - but this does not mean Mr C will be released then, only that he can be.

If after 10 years Mr C released he is not 'free' - he is on licence and will be subject to restrictions and monitoring. Mr C may not deserve to be in prison for life, but he still made a serious error of judgment, so he isn't just let out. Common requirements may be meeting a probation officer regularly, not being able to associate with certain people, not being able to move house without notifying the authorities, no going abroad etc. If Mr C breaks a term of the licence or is implicated in a crime he can be immediately recalled to prison (my wife works in criminal justice - her record for recalling someone to prison is 2 hrs after finding out about about a breach). Over time and as trust is built the restrictions can be reduced.

The point is the UK system allows life long monitoring and restriction with real teeth - an ability to recall someone to prison years after release. That's why handing out life sentences to every murderer is so useful. It's also incredibly successful - do you know how many people in the UK are 're-convicted' of murder (or manslaughter) each year (ie kill, serve time, are released, then kill again)? Around three, just three.

That's an interesting case. In the US, I'm not sure if Mr. C would be charged with murder for Mr. D's death if that happened. More likely Mr. D's family would sue the crap out of the doctor, hospital, and Mr. C for good measure. Mr. C would get charged with something - possibly assault. It wouldn't be murder and I doubt it would be manslaughter either.

What happens if instead of fighting, Mr. C and Mr. D are involved in a car accident. The accident is Mr. C's fault - nothing blatantly negligent like drinking and driving or excessive speed. Maybe he didn't see Mr. D when changing lanes on the highway or something. An honest mistake, we've all done it, but his fault nonetheless. Mr. C doesn't even cause extreme physical injuries to Mr. D - he's just taken to the hospital to be checked out and the doctor gives him pain medication he's allergic to and he dies. Is Mr. C still considered responsible for murder under English law since, after all, it was Mr. C who resulted in Mr. D being hospitalized in the first place?

[Squilly]

Originally Posted by yg17

That's an interesting case. In the US, I'm not sure if Mr. C would be charged with murder for Mr. D's death if that happened. More likely Mr. D's family would sue the crap out of the doctor, hospital, and Mr. C for good measure. Mr. C would get charged with something - possibly assault. It wouldn't be murder and I doubt it would be manslaughter either.

What happens if instead of fighting, Mr. C and Mr. D are involved in a car accident. The accident is Mr. C's fault - nothing blatantly negligent like drinking and driving or excessive speed. Maybe he didn't see Mr. D when changing lanes on the highway or something. An honest mistake, we've all done it, but his fault nonetheless. Mr. C doesn't even cause extreme physical injuries to Mr. D - he's just taken to the hospital to be checked out and the doctor gives him pain medication he's allergic to and he dies. Is Mr. C still considered responsible for murder under English law since, after all, it was Mr. C who resulted in Mr. D being hospitalized in the first place?

Would be the doctors fault for giving the wrong meds. Like Michael Jackson...

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by yg17

That's an interesting case. In the US, I'm not sure if Mr. C would be charged with murder for Mr. D's death if that happened. More likely Mr. D's family would sue the crap out of the doctor, hospital, and Mr. C for good measure. Mr. C would get charged with something - possibly assault. It wouldn't be murder and I doubt it would be manslaughter either.

What happens if instead of fighting, Mr. C and Mr. D are involved in a car accident. The accident is Mr. C's fault - nothing blatantly negligent like drinking and driving or excessive speed. Maybe he didn't see Mr. D when changing lanes on the highway or something. An honest mistake, we've all done it, but his fault nonetheless. Mr. C doesn't even cause extreme physical injuries to Mr. D - he's just taken to the hospital to be checked out and the doctor gives him pain medication he's allergic to and he dies. Is Mr. C still considered responsible for murder under English law since, after all, it was Mr. C who resulted in Mr. D being hospitalized in the first place?

Again, depends on the state, but, I do see a trend (in the U.S.) that more and more of these cases, that formerly would have been considered "accidents", are being charged as manslaughter. And, not only that, but, some cases where people who have a known medical condition, such as Type I diabetes, who become incapacitated while driving, causing a crash with a resulting fatality, are also charged with manslaughter. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, some of these are definitely "foreseeable", but, not always-- where do you draw the line? Almost everybody has some kind of condition at some point that could cause result in incapacitation. Over the last 50 years, the pendulum has swung from all kinds of negligent behavior resulting in "accidents", towards a pretty extreme view of responsibility in a few of these cases.

[iStudentUK]

Originally Posted by yg17

What happens if instead of fighting, Mr. C and Mr. D are involved in a car accident. The accident is Mr. C's fault - nothing blatantly negligent like drinking and driving or excessive speed. Maybe he didn't see Mr. D when changing lanes on the highway or something. An honest mistake, we've all done it, but his fault nonetheless. Mr. C doesn't even cause extreme physical injuries to Mr. D - he's just taken to the hospital to be checked out and the doctor gives him pain medication he's allergic to and he dies. Is Mr. C still considered responsible for murder under English law since, after all, it was Mr. C who resulted in Mr. D being hospitalized in the first place?

In the UK Mr C would not have committed murder in that case. Murder here is a crime of "specific intent" - ie you actually have to intend to kill or cause serious harm. You can't recklessly or negligently commit murder.

It's important to distinguish negligence and recklessness. It's complex so I'll just give a basic explanation. Someone is reckless if they foresee a risk of something happening, but unreasonably takes that risk anyway. Negligence is performing your duty below a reasonable standard (your duty depends on what you are doing - a driver must drive at the standard of a reasonable driver, a doctor must perform their job as a reasonable doctor etc. But nobody is required to be perfect).

Mr C may have committed a crime (anything up to involuntary manslaughter in an extreme case) if he was reckless - but you say 'nothing blatant' in this case so that is very unlikely. If he was negligent he could be liable in tort (ie sued in civil court for money). Ultimately, if Mr C was not negligent or reckless and then there may be no liability at all - often people don't realise you can be factually responsible for somebody else's death without being legally liable.

The doctor may have been negligent and could then be sued in tort. It would take something pretty drastic for him to have committed a crime by being reckless - like thinking "I'll unplug this patient's life support machine without checking his condtion, what the hell seems like a laugh".

[Huntn]

The strongest argument against the Death Penalty:
The Daily Beast: Justice Thinks Again.

"Everyone in prison is an innocent man."

Well, not everyone, but...

Every week, on average, the prisons of America discharge another newly exonerated soul, cleared of an old crime and restored to the world of socked feet and premium cable. They are the lucky ones, part of a national movement to right every judicial wrong.

But the work is slow, and the human toll is already in the hundreds of lifetimes, an average of 13 lost years per person from arrest to exoneration. The best estimates say that about 5 percent of the U.S. prison population is innocent, including at least 2 percent of inmates on death row. That’s more than 100,000 undeserving people doing hard time, another 36 waiting to die. If accurate, it’s perhaps the most acute moral crisis in America today.

[Gav2k]

Originally Posted by iStudentUK

Against it in all circumstances. Fortunately my country has been abolitionist for decades, it has no place in civilised society.

I disagree it should be brought back

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by Gav2k

I disagree it should be brought back

So the UK could join the likes of:- Afghanistan Bahamas Belarus Botswana China (PRC) Cuba Egypt Guatemala India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Lebanon Malaysia North Korea Pakistan Saudi Arabia Singapore Somalia South Korea Suriname Syria Taiwan (ROC) Tajikistan Tonga United Arab Emirates United States Vietnam Yemen