Bring back the Death Penalty, says new UKIP MEP

Newly elected UKIP MEP, Louise Bours

Louis Bours, the recently elected UKIP MEP, has sparked debate on Britain’s legal process by arguing in favour of the death penalty for “certain types of crimes”.

“The public are fed up with the government’s concentration on the rights of the criminal, and are demanding the rights of victims and their families should take priority.

 “The death penalty won’t bring back a tortured and murdered child, but it seems natural justice that the family will know the killer has paid the ultimate price and isn’t still breathing when their child is not,” Ms Bours told journalists.

A YouGov survey from August this year found that 45% of people were still in favour of the death penalty for murder, in comparison to 39% who were not.

Ms Bours added: “An innocent child has more of a right to life than the monster that took their life, so I see no ethical reason why we are obliged to keep him alive.

“The killers of Lee Rigby despise the UK and want to kill us all, yet we have to use tax-payers money to keep them alive and well in prison, and look after their ‘human-rights’.”

UKIP were contacted for comment, but so far have not provided a statement on this matter.


  1. Only a very few people think that the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes don’t deserve death, even a death more unpleasant that the instantaneous death at the end of the long drop. My argument against the death penalty is that I believe that man does not have the right to kill except in war or in self defence, it would make me very uneasy indeed to think that this was being done in my name.

    • And you want to provide some evidence for that because as I stated above that doesn’t seem to be accurate if for no other reason than life imprisonment can have variations that make it better or worse.

  2. I’m so tired of these people who dress up vengeance as justice and play on these emotions to grab votes. Firstly if a person knows they are paying the “ultimate price” after raping a child what now prevents him from going on to kill that child or rape and kill more? He has nothing to lose past the first crime. So firstly you have to ask if the punishment is to stop crime or provide vengeance.

    Secondly you have to see what works. The US legal system is all about punishment and vengeance. Scandinavia however is about rehabilitation, public protection and prevention. The US has huge problems with murder and rape whereas Scandinavia does not.

    So basically if you want to stop that child from being raped or killed in the first place take the soft approach and try to interact with criminals and get them rehabilitated before they get to that point. If you just want to tell all those grieving parents that particular guy is dead then follow the US example.

    • OMG! Hug a Hoody time. If anything like this ever happens to you, and I pray to the good Lord that it never does, I defy you to stand there after hearing in Court the graphic details of how a loved one suffered, and spout that crap. You’d be screaming from the roof tops that you want to kill the person with your own bare hands!

      • Yes I most likely would. But that doesn’t make it the best course of action and is exactly the reason why the law forbids people close to the case being involved. For example you’ve been raped by a guy who then hides from the police in a wooden building. It has 1 door and you have a fire torch in your hand. Now anger would make you take vengeance and burn that building down instead of calling over the police. When the rest of the street also burns down including the local orphanage how much did your anger really help? But as long as you got your revenge I guess…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here