View Full Version : death penalty
a lot of people might not agree, i think phedos and child killers should get the death penalty
Kevin Milkins
28-Jul-11, 22:53
What's a phedo?
Dunno, is it a tight pair of swimming trunks?
I used to think it was wrong to support state sponsored execution. Now I'm not so sure. I could pull the handle myself on Peter Tobin but sometimes juries get it wrong. That's the difficulty.
'Tis better that One Hundred Guilty men go free than One Innocent be Hanged....
Attributed to William Blackstone, and even King Alfred in C9.
I used to think it was wrong to support state sponsored execution. Now I'm not so sure. I could pull the handle myself on Peter Tobin but sometimes juries get it wrong. That's the difficulty.
Exactly G.....even the witnesses and the Polis.....................
Kevin Milkins
28-Jul-11, 23:43
If you watch 10 Rillington Place, it's a good example of why it's not a good idea to string someone up hastily, however, I think there are many baddies that would benefit society greatly if they were done away with.
Imagine yourself suddenely arrested and charged for a Murder you did not commit. You were in the wrong place at the arong time but the police have a lot of Circumstantial evidence against you. You go to trial and you get a useless public defender and the prosecution demands for the Death Penalty.
After deliberation you get found Guilty and the Judge then sentences you to be Hanged by the Neck until you are Dead. You know you did not do the crime, but it is too late as three weeks later you take the long walk and excuted for a crime you did not commit.
No I can not agree to any form of killing, be it lawful or unlawful it is all wrong. No matter how sure the courts are that a person commited a Capital Crime there is always that tiny piece of doubt and as such the Death Penaly should stay as it is, DEAD!!
Kevin Milkins
29-Jul-11, 00:26
Imagine yourself suddenely arrested and charged for a Murder you did not commit. You were in the wrong place at the arong time but the police have a lot of Circumstantial evidence against you. You go to trial and you get a useless public defender and the prosecution demands for the Death Penalty.
After deliberation you get found Guilty and the Judge then sentences you to be Hanged by the Neck until you are Dead. You know you did not do the crime, but it is too late as three weeks later you take the long walk and excuted for a crime you did not commit.
No I can not agree to any form of killing, be it lawful or unlawful it is all wrong. No matter how sure the courts are that a person committed a Capital Crime there is always that tiny piece of doubt and as such the Death Penaly should stay as it is, DEAD!!
OK, what if the wretched bad person is as guilty as sticky the stick insect stuck to a sticky bun, and confesses his guilt, would it be OK to rid of him, (or her) then?
Google Stefan Kisko, read his story and understand that he would without doubt have been hanged as it took many years to release him.
As for confessions well, years ago in Shaw near oldham there were two poor old ladies murdered. A terrible crime which shocked the whole town, all efforts were made to get the person responsible and they charged a young lad after he confessed to the murder and signed his confession. He was remanded in custody, the police were sure sure sure they had their man. Turned out they were wrong. A year later a female taxi driver was abducted, assaulted and locked in the boot of her car. Fortunately her husband worried when she didn't return and went looking for her. He found the car and they caught the man that did it. He confessed to the murder of the two old ladies. The original suspect was released but not before he had spent nearly a year on remand, his mother had a breakdown which included several suicide attempts, they had to move away and I understand that he was so traumatised by the questioning that he really thought he HAD killed them but had blocked the whole thing out. If they hadn't caught the
killer he may very well have let his confession stand ... Who knows. He didn't, but he may have hanged for a crime he did not do. One innocent person executed is too high a price to pay.
Some of you might think otherwise, there sometimes is not a lot of compassion on here, but if you think it's a price worth paying... Think about Stefan Kisko's mum or that poor lad and imagine it's your mum or your son. If you accept the death of the occasional innocent person for the 'greater good' then you have to accept you may be called upon to give up your life.Peter Tobin might be guilty guilty guilty but we have to have one law for all, not one for those Definitely guilty and those who might be proved innocent later... It can't possibly work as by definition you are either guilty or innocent ... No half measures and yet sometimes courts get it wrong.
In my lifetime there have been, at least, dozens of guilty guilty guilty people have been let out, sometimes after spending years in the choky, all proved innocent in the end.
On many occasions the police and or the DPP not only get it wrong, but know it and won't admit it.
In my lifetime there have been, at least, dozens of guilty guilty guilty people have been let out, sometimes after spending years in the choky, all proved innocent in the end.
On many occasions the police and or the DPP not only get it wrong, but know it and won't admit it.
Well D., it isn't that simple.....If a person 'gets off' with something it sometimes takes a long time to get them back into Court, and you must remember that in the opposite circumstances a whole new investigation must be done and then the facts brought before the Court.
Also remember that 'The Police are the Public and the Public are the Police'.....and so is the DPP with you and the Attorney General's Dept in North America.
The system we have is the best in the World....better than being found guilty by one Judge and then taken out the back and shot/ yes sometimes one feels like doing just that, but common sense must prevail.
Many of the so called 'innocent people' are in fact found Not Guilty ....now the Importand bit.....Beyond a reasonable doubt.
yorkshire lassie
29-Jul-11, 09:40
Whenever I see the death penalty argument rear its head, I too think of Stefan Kiszko. I was brought up a stone's throw from where Lesley Molseed was murdered. We were family friends of Campbell Malone, the lawyer who played a big part in Stefan Kiszko's release. It had a huge impact on us all when we were younger and I still sometimes shed a tear now when I think of what happened to him and what could have happened had we still had the death penalty.
I know that technology has advanced greatly since then and there is usually more evidence to convict people of crimes, but I still oppose the death penalty. Mistakes can still be made.
What's a phedo?
typo no doubt. Otherwise I hope you never have to find out......
There are many many bad people out there but two wrongs don't make a right, the entire judicial system needs a complete shake up! In the past it not been unknown for someone to admit to crimes they did not commit, what if these were executed (their sick and twisted plan) and the real guilty guy is still free. It's a huge controversial dilemma which I doubt will ever be solved BUT on the other hand if anyone ever touched my kids I'd be wanting to string them up myself.....
Well D., it isn't that simple.....If a person 'gets off' with something it sometimes takes a long time to get them back into Court, and you must remember that in the opposite circumstances a whole new investigation must be done and then the facts brought before the Court.
Also remember that 'The Police are the Public and the Public are the Police'.....and so is the DPP with you and the Attorney General's Dept in North America.
The system we have is the best in the World....better than being found guilty by one Judge and then taken out the back and shot/ yes sometimes one feels like doing just that, but common sense must prevail.
Many of the so called 'innocent people' are in fact found Not Guilty ....now the Importand bit.....Beyond a reasonable doubt.
You missed my point completely
[QUOTE=Julia;873568]and the real guilty guy is still free/QUOTE]
Bit of a sexist assumption, particularly in the light of recent cases.
You missed my point completely
Sorry....perhaps my interpretation....
BTW There is quite a difference between 'innocent' and 'proved beyond a reasonable doubt'.
A General comment...Not directed to anyone..
If you had seen/ been involved in as many Homicides/ Deaths as I have over the years, you would not want to 'snuff out' another life without being sure...sure of Guilt. I did at one time think that the Accused should be.......strung up....... but there are so many intracacies involed that it is quite dangerous....
Many times all the evidence available to the Polis does not come out in Court due to the rite of the accused to a 'fair trial', and Juries are infamous for coming back with 'Wackie' decisions/ witnesses are quite unreliable/ Police make mistakes etc etc.
l
Any Criminal Charge must be proven 'Beyond a reasonable doubt'.....And that is defined as ...A set of Facts or Circumstances which would enable a person of 'normal care and judgement' to have a strong belief'.. Now, everyone is different in their perception..look at the different interpretations on the ORG.....So if that is an indication, I vote for No Killing....
The other thing, which is perhaps a selfish view....If I was accused of something I didn't do, I would be quite unhappy to be 'hanged by the neck until dead/ lethal injection/electric current or Firing Squad..BTW which is still used in certain US states.
Just a thought......
philupmaboug
29-Jul-11, 16:35
Bring back hanging, Too right, it would save us tax payers millions. Have never heard of a hung person winning an appeal so whats the problem? A jury makes a mistake....so what! doctors do it all the time but I dont hear you bleeting on about them. If it happened to yours then you would be there with your hand on the lever, I know I would.
So if you were convicted of something you hadn't done you would stop bleating about it and accept you were going to die. That it was just tough luck and you would be happy for everyone to say "oh well juries make mistakes, so what!"If it happened to mine you are right I may very likely feel like the person responsible has no right to live, that they should die and I should be the one to kill them, suppose I got my way then 10 years later it turns out they were innocent and someone else is convicted. An innocent person would have died to satisfy my need for vengeance. How does that help me? It is precisely because juries make mistakes that I don't believe that the death penalty is the right solution.
two cases that come to mind.. would be the lacey peterson case and the casey anthony case..
both on trial for murder and both facing the death penalty..
in the lacey peterson case her husband was found guilty of two counts of 1st degree murder as they believe that connor would have lived if she had given birth.
now on a more recent case.. you have loads and loads of circumstantial evidence, a dead toddler when found still had duct tape attached to her skull and hair..
the car had the smell of decomposing flesh and they found a hair with decomposition bands on it in the boot.
she lied continuously over the course of the trial.. and the two years in prison awaiting the trial.
even changing her story several times.. finally finishing on the story caylee drowned in the pool and her and her father panicked and covered it up.
with no explanation of why there was clorophom found and why caylee was ductaped and dumped in a swamp.
in the 30 days before she was reported missing by her grandmother she partied had a tattoo of beautiful life put on her shoulder and had a great time..
but at the end of the day.. because they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty of killing her little girl.. she is now free and living the good life.
not even serving a longer sentence as she was let off with time served.
What when theres no doubt? Ian Huntley/Moors murderers for example? I say let them hang.
kwbrown111
29-Jul-11, 22:18
For pedophiles castration first then hanging
For people who wish death and castration on paedophiles without being able to spell the word..............hanging!
How do you have a death penalty for people DEFINITELY guilty and one for those who may not be DEFINITELY guilty. It doesn't make sense. People are guilty or not guilty or in Scotland not proven. But if they are guilty there are not different degrees of guilty.... If convicted you are as guilty as the next guilty person. Stefan Kisko's conviction deemed him as guilty as Ian Huntly. Ronald Castree who was subsequently convicted of the murder of Lesley Molseed is as guilty as huntly or Brady. If we bring back hanging then we bring it back for people who are guilty of specific crimes. EVERY person guilty of a that specific crime. If we hang them and they are subsequently exonerated then that's too bad they will be just as dead. I reiterate what I said earlier which was that if you are pro the death penalty despite the fact that mistakes can be made, you are suggesting that the death of an innocent person even once is a price worth paying. You have to then accept that the innocent person wrongly convicted may turn out to be you or someone you love. Is it still a price worth paying?
northener
30-Jul-11, 09:28
No death penalty. But in premeditated cases, life imprisonment should definitely mean imprisonment for life.
No death penalty. But in premeditated cases, life imprisonment should definitely mean imprisonment for life.
And hard labour to be included.
That poses the question. Is it ok for an innocent person to spend the rest of their lives in Jail?
Ive already said I could support the death penalty and in certain circumstances could pull the lever myself. I challenge anyone here who opposes the death penalty to defend their position if one of their children was horribly tortured and murdered by anyone?
Hypothetical position I know and impossible to give a truthful answer based in reality but well worth consideration when debating the death penalty.
Cheers Gleeber... That's a lovely thought for this sunny morning. I can't and don't really want to imagine how I would feel if something like you describe happened to one of my children. I think I would feel like I wanted to die too. I don't feel rage very often ... I am not a person who even manages to stay angry for very long but I am sure that I would want the person convicted and held to account for what they did. I am also sure I would want to kill them with my bare hands or do to them what they did to my darling child. I can't imagine how I would live with the pain and the guilt and the knowledge of how my child died. However, that's why the law is not made by victims in the depths of their grief or horror or completely justifiable desire for retribution. Even making that leap of imaginative horror I still believe that hanging is wrong. The possibility of one innocent person dying is too high for me, I would be as destroyed by the death by execution of one of my children who had been wrongly convicted of a crime as I would be in your scenario. The pain. Anguish and impotence would be awful. I do not believe that judges, juries. Police, witnesses, DNA processes are completely infallible and unless they are there are always possibilities of mistakes being made. That's the bottom line really for me.
how do you have a death penalty for people definitely guilty and one for those who may not be definitely guilty. It doesn't make sense. People are guilty or not guilty or in scotland not proven. But if they are guilty there are not different degrees of guilty.... If convicted you are as guilty as the next guilty person. Stefan kisko's conviction deemed him as guilty as ian huntly. Ronald castree who was subsequently convicted of the murder of lesley molseed is as guilty as huntly or brady. If we bring back hanging then we bring it back for people who are guilty of specific crimes. All those guilty of specific crimes and if they are subsequently exonerated then that's too bad they will be just as dead. i reiterate what i said earlier which was that if you are pro the death penalty despite the fact that mistakes can be made, you are suggesting that the death of an innocent person even once is a price worth paying. You have to then accept that the innocent person wrongly convicted may turn out to be you or someone you love. Is it still a price worth paying?
huh?.............................................
I know I know sandyr1 gobbledygook lol. I edited the original post and hope it makes more sense.
Death Penalty? On no counts should this be brought back - no matter what the crime. And yes, there is the "but what if it was your child that was killed", well, that's precisley why they don't let the family members decide the fate of the accused. And yes, people against the death penalty will say "well what if the person is innocent?", yes, they may very well be but even if they are guilty - they should NOT be put to death.
It is such biblical nonesense and since we now know what an atom is, we don't need to follow what that book says anymore.
Yes bring it back for murderers, rapists, paedophiles and young teens who have never worked in their lives yet bang out kids and expect the State to keep them in benefits!!! And also those who claim the DLA and get free cars when they really aren't disabled, Boy do I know a lot of those!!!
C3.....:eek:[disgust][evil]
skytalker
31-Jul-11, 02:37
Personally the whole judicial system needs a major overhaul. How many times do we hear of someone getting off because the 'dot' was in the wrong place? The police did an illegal search?? Sorry but if I was stupid enough to have drugs in the house when the Police arrived and whether they were looking for it or not – if they found it then I should be nicked. It is something that we are not supposed to have or use, IT IS ILLEGAL.
Also I listened to a radio program once and repeat offenders were telling how good it is in prison. Time to make prison what it is supposed to be, punishment and correctional facilities, and not better and cheaper than being at home.
One American Warden appreciates that prisoner’s basic rights have to be met, so he allows them the statutory amount of TV viewing, but they only get to watch the Weather program, no choice. Another state has all its prisoners living in pink cells and wearing pink uniforms.
It is I who have faced them last, young lads and girls, working men and grandmothers.
I have been amazed to see courage with which they walk into the unknown.
It did not deter them then and it had not deterred them when they committed what they were convicted for.
All the men and women i have faced at that final moment, convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.
And if death does not work to deter one person, it should not be held to deter any... Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge.
They talk about bringing back hanging for the murder of police officers, but they never mention bringing it back for the murder of children.
"If they bring it back fair enough, but bring it back for everyone. A murder is a murder."
Albert Pierrepoint.
Chief Executioner 1932 - 1956.
One American Warden appreciates that prisoner’s basic rights have to be met, so he allows them the statutory amount of TV viewing, but they only get to watch the Weather program, no choice. Another state has all its prisoners living in pink cells and wearing pink uniforms.
And that has worked really well for the American crime rate, hasn't it?
You cannot compare the American system with here. American jails are about generating money, competing with bussineses which have to pay real wages and other overheads that the jails do not.
The OP is intended to inflame sentiment. To disagree with it is to seem a softie on very horrible crimes. Just as criminal is the death of an innocent person. The American crime rate proves that people who have got nothing else to loose for their crimes means that they become more violent in the attempt to eliminate witnesses.
And that has worked really well for the American crime rate, hasn't it?
You cannot compare the American system with here. American jails are about generating money, competing with bussineses which have to pay real wages and other overheads that the jails do not.
The OP is intended to inflame sentiment. To disagree with it is to seem a softie on very horrible crimes. Just as criminal is the death of an innocent person. The American crime rate proves that people who have got nothing else to loose for their crimes means that they become more violent in the attempt to eliminate witnesses.
Yes Ju.......but it seems to me that the UK news portrays the US in quite a negative light. Nearly every day the UK news, including the Internet sites tell stories of Crime in the US., e.g. Police hunted bearded woman, 4 people shot in Cleveland, woman finds camera in US flat....that is just from today's news......
I travel to the US regularly and I have never seen drunkeness like I recently saw in Inverness!!!
Just a thought......let's get some perspective here!
Yes Ju.......but it seems to me that the UK news portrays the US in quite a negative light. Nearly every day the UK news, including the Internet sites tell stories of Crime in the US., e.g. Police hunted bearded woman, 4 people shot in Cleveland, woman finds camera in US flat....that is just from today's news......
I travel to the US regularly and I have never seen drunkeness like I recently saw in Inverness!!!
Just a thought......let's get some perspective here!
Sandy just a few crime figures for you to mull over, can find no trace of any drunkenness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Toronto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_London#Crime_statistics
Of course you are correct...there is more crime in the United States.
That is what you are saying/ and I don't want to 'get into it', but the UK has the highest rate of violent crime in the EU., and a higher violent crime rate that the US.....The US has more murders but.....
Interesting reports on this subject....suffice to say that was not the object of my thoughts.....It was that some Media make a point of 'dumping' on other Countries trying to make them better. Today 3 of the 7 stories on the web was about the 'bad US'.
And yes, they don't consider drunkeness a crime per se! I guess that is OK. I shall leave it there/ interesting stories you sent.
And the object of the exercise was not to be negative about the UK. Just some thoughts.
orkneycadian
04-Aug-11, 19:09
Whats the chances of its return in all realisticness? On the Jeremy Whine programme today, this was being discussed, slightly off topic as the main subject was e-petitions. Some MP was on giving his comment, and admitting that even though he was aware public opinion has been in favour of capital punishment since 1945 or 1960 odd whenever it was abolished, he would continue to vote for not re-introducing it, as he expected would, most of his MP colleagues.
As Jeremy Whine picked up on, so he would vote completely against the wishes of his constituents who elected him to represent them?
Nothing new there, but never heard an MP being so bold as to say his constituents wishes mean nothing to him, and he will happily vote against them!
Perhaps the first folk to get to try out the new gallows should be dis-obedient MP's....
There was A Tory MP on the radio said the same thing this morning but I still think most people would vote against it. It goes against quite a lot of rational human nature to deliberately kill someone and unless your prepared to do it yourself don't vote for it. That's why they get a free vote on the subject of the death penalty. I suppose if his constituents thought strongly enough about it they could certainly raise it with him. Failing that dont vote for him. Its not going to happen and as much as I would be willing to pull the lever on some of them I will just have to go with the flow.
orkneycadian
04-Aug-11, 19:26
.... I still think most people would vote against it.....
They must say different in the opinion polls than they would when it came to a vote then...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14402195
Just a thought, in the US, Lawyers have made an entire career out of keeping one convicted and sentenced convict alive. I wonder how much that costs?
I would not like to be on a jury where someone was being tried for murder if the death penalty was brought back. If the person was later proved innocent how would you feel? However I do think "life" should be exactly that.
philupmaboug
04-Aug-11, 23:17
You would get over it, we all have problems with the death penalty but the good thing is that once its done we can't go back so get over it and vote YES.
George Brims
05-Aug-11, 00:07
And yes, they don't consider drunkeness a crime per se!
Public intoxication is a crime in many US jurisdictions. And the cops are quite happy to do you for it, though in many country places it's just used as a pretext to get you in the police car and out of the bad weather so you don't freeze to death in the winter or die of dehydration in the summer.
orkneycadian
05-Aug-11, 07:12
I would not like to be on a jury where someone was being tried for murder if the death penalty was brought back. If the person was later proved innocent how would you feel?
Probably the same as you would if you were on the jury where someone was proven guilty of murder beyond all possible doubt, got sentenced for 15 years, got let out in less than 10, and within a week had murdered someone else, possibly a child!
I think the supporters of the death penalty have, in general, a common understanding that its for cases where guilt is proven beyond all doubt. In 1965 when it was abolished, we didn't have DNA matching, CCTV on every street and in near every shop and every bank, the prospect of "head cams" on police officers and nearly every citizen in the UK carrying a small, portable pocket-sized video recording system in their possession for near instant photographic and videographic record making.
So if I were on that jury where the beyond doubt murderer was being charged, yes, I would be happy to be on it and to help deliver the correct verdict. I would be happy, not for revenge, as some anti death penalty supporters suggest, but to ensure appropriate punishment was being administered, that the risk to the public of further murders in 10 years time was eliminated and that public money would not be squandered keeping a murder in comparative luxury for the next 10 years or however long.
This is topical, AND he's got a petition: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14402195
orkneycadian
05-Aug-11, 07:47
And it was linked to 6 postings above!
Get with it man! ;)
And it was linked to 6 postings above!
Get with it man! ;)
Blinking heck; you're quick!
I think the supporters of the death penalty have, in general, a common understanding that its for cases where guilt is proven beyond all doubt. In 1965 when it was abolished, we didn't have DNA matching, CCTV on every street and in near every shop and every bank, the prospect of "head cams" on police officers and nearly every citizen in the UK carrying a small, portable pocket-sized video recording system in their possession for near instant photographic and videographic record making.
.
Miscarriages of justice are not prevented by all the technology you cite. They are still happening. Aside from that justice is never imaprtial. You only get the justice you can afford. So if you have the means to defend yourself or if your case is interesting enough to to draw the attention of someone with enough clout to defend you, it is more likely that you will get off scott free, even if common sense dictates that you are guilty. Where as if you are poor, inarticulate, ugly/unlikeable, uneducated or otherwise impaired, it becomes more likely that you are convicted, even when proof is circumstancial.
While you may consider the death penalty the ultimate punishment, I would consider it a blessing for a tortured mind. If I were a victim of a criminals violence, I would want him/her to knowingly live with no freedoms for the rest of their lives. I would not want them to have the unknowing freedom of death.
Probably the same as you would if you were on the jury where someone was proven guilty of murder beyond all possible doubt, got sentenced for 15 years, got let out in less than 10, and within a week had murdered someone else, possibly a child!
I think the supporters of the death penalty have, in general, a common understanding that its for cases where guilt is proven beyond all doubt. In 1965 when it was abolished, we didn't have DNA matching, CCTV on every street and in near every shop and every bank, the prospect of "head cams" on police officers and nearly every citizen in the UK carrying a small, portable pocket-sized video recording system in their possession for near instant photographic and videographic record making.
So if I were on that jury where the beyond doubt murderer was being charged, yes, I would be happy to be on it and to help deliver the correct verdict. I would be happy, not for revenge, as some anti death penalty supporters suggest, but to ensure appropriate punishment was being administered, that the risk to the public of further murders in 10 years time was eliminated and that public money would not be squandered keeping a murder in comparative luxury for the next 10 years or however long.
I did say "life" should mean life and also we should get rid of the luxuries.
orkneycadian
06-Aug-11, 15:24
Tough times, tough choices - Over £700 a week to keep a convicted murderer alive, or the same money used to provide heating for multitudes of law abiding grannies in the winter to keep them freezing to death.... :confused:
It is the system we live under.....perhaps not fair to some, but it has to be fair to all.
DNA......not infallable/ perhaps everyone thinks so but not so...It depends on the taking of the sample right down to the analysis of the sample/ remember in all steps of the system human beings are in charge and they make mistakes...
orkneycadian
06-Aug-11, 16:09
So, it would be OK to cock up the DNA and make an innocent person rot in jail for the rest of their lives, but not to execute them?
As before the key is on "All reasonable doubt" - I really wonder what doubt there is left if, as is not unfeasible....
There is CCTV evidence of the perp carrying out the deed
The perp freely admits "Yeah guv, it were me whodunnit - he 'ad it comin to him"
24 relaible witnesses saw the perp do the deed
The perp is surrounded by police and a cameraman for "Cops with Cameras", still with smoking gun in hand, and the whole lot is caught on 6 separate video streams.
Even with all the above, the anti death penalty brigade will likely claim there could be some doubt, and as a result some poor, innocent member of the public may be wrongly hanged.....
In very very few circumstances any of the 'above mentioned' circumstanes available to the Justice System.....
1...... CCTV is not all that clear.... most of the time.
2.......People falsely 'cop out' to Crimes
3.......Yes 24 but have you ever taken statements from multiple witnesse.....people percieve things differently and under pressure in the witness box, will go with the flow!
4........Rather unusual perhaps!
I know what you are getting at BUT.........
orkneycadian
06-Aug-11, 16:21
So maybe Ian Brady is innocent after all?
It's been a while since I read about them....... I don't know...am not saying that.....
But rather than make rash judgements and statements, one should look at the entire pic.
30 years ago I would a agree ....put the so and so's out of their misery, but much water hath run under the bridge and after seeing the 'failings of humans', methinks that we should be careful.......anyway it really isn't an issue...as someone said, Countries with the Death penaly still have probs. Is it solving anything///we don't know!
orkneycadian
07-Aug-11, 12:53
What gets me in these cases as well, is that a murderer can be as guilty as sin, have overwhelming evidence against him or her, yet still has the right of a lawyer to try and get him off the hook, or at least the sentence minimised as much as possible. My understanding is that if I tried to the do the same for a mate who was up on a charge, I could be accused of trying to pervert the course of justice. But its OK for a defence lawyer to have a crack at it, and get paid handsomely in the process!
We could save an awful lot of time, hassle and money if in cases where there is overwhelming, reliable and foolproof evidence that says the accused did the deed, that the penalty was administered there and then, with no further nancying around. And before the civil liberty do-gooders cry that the accused must be due a fair trial, I would ask "what trial did his/her victims get beforehand to see if it was fair or not, for them to be murdered?"
I, like many other supports will entirely agree that it all hinges on proving beyond all doubt. If that is the case, then just get on with it, get the job done, total cost = 1 bullet and a body bag.
There is an importance premise here....Everyone has the right to a defence.
Yes I suppose you are generally correct in your thoughts, but we just cannot do it.
Having been involved in the 'general justice system' for approx 35 years, I can assure you that all is not as it seems. I have seen many a twist in what is initially reported to the end result. And some would totally surprise the general public.
I have seen people who would for weeks glean information from the newpapers etc., and would then come in and 'admit' to the Crime...Thus the reason why Police never tell the entire story/ save something back that only the perpetrator would know!
I have seen witnesses who saw the same situation occur, and would give sometimes totally different descriptions of the suspects, or how the situation went down.
Ad the list goes on.
Yes the Civil Liberty people perhaps go too far, but there is a place for them....
We in the Civilized World have a good system...Here after a suspect has been arrested and 'information' is laid before a Justice of the Peace, who must determine if there is sufficient evidence to bring the charge/person before the Court. If so, the info goes to the Crown Attorney...Prosecutor...Procurator Fiscal...who then examines the evidence to see if there is any 'reasonable prospect of a conviction'.
In certain cases we have 'pre trial hearings' before a judge...somewhat informal...to see if the case can be determined without going to trial.
If not the accused can choose...the method of trial.....Judge or Judge and Jury.
If found guilty there is an avenue for appeal.......
It's all there to ensure the accused gets a fair 'shake'!
A bullet and body bag is a NO NO.......
Totaly agree, bring it back put it to the vote let the public decide
orkneycadian
01-Sep-11, 18:11
Hah, It'll never go to a vote! Even if 90% or more of the population wanted it, we'll never see a vote for it, let alone its re-introduction!
oldmarine
01-Sep-11, 19:08
Haste can be waste. Better that a case gets thoroughly investigated and thoroughly convinced of guilt before execution. After an innocent person has been executed it is too late to correct the problem.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.