1K.Orger
Originally Posted by MerlinScot
Do whatever you want, I will not condone executing innocent people. Ever.
Radical, Man!
.Orger
If a person or persons kidnap, molest and murder in such ways as to be intentional and for there own sick gratification, and are caught red handed. I do not want my taxes paying for them to live in jail with all the mod cones and there cunguanable rights as the EU allows. I also would dread the thought that they might one day be set free, and do it again as history has proved,....... hanging is to good for them...... LET THEM ROT IN A PIT.
1K.Orger
And what will that achieve ? Flynn is entitled to his opinion, and his reasoning behind it. My opinion differs to Flynn, but I am entitled to do that as well. Arguing about it is not going to help, Britain will never reinstate the death penalty, so it's a bit pointless. Like you MerlinScot, I was a victim of "crime", in my case it was terrorism, along with quite a few other people, some of whom died that awful day. So my views are admittedly affected by that. Certainly, I firmly believe there are certain people who should never be allowed to walk the streets again, but what happened to me, happened nearly thirty years ago, and I have just had to get on with it.
Just because Flynn, (hopefully) has not been through what you or I have (I'm sorry, I do'nt know what happened to you) it does'nt mean he, or anybody else that disagrees with the death penalty, do'nt care, it does'nt mean that at all. They are highlighting the problems with our judicial system. This is from Wikipedia -
"
United Kingdom
Timothy Evans was tried and executed in 1950 for the murder of his baby daughter Geraldine. An official inquiry conducted 16 years later determined that it was Evans's fellow tenant, serial killer John Reginald Halliday Christie, who was responsible for the murder. Christie also admitted to the murder of Evans's wife, as well as five other women and his own wife. Christie may have murdered other women, judging by evidence found in his possession at the time of his arrest, but it was never pursued by the police. Evans was posthumously pardoned in 1966. The case had prompted the abolition of capital punishment in the UK in 1965.
Derek Bentley was a mentally challenged young man who was executed in 1953, also in the United Kingdom. He was convicted of the murder of a police officer during an attempted robbery, despite the facts that it was his accomplice who fired the gun and that Bentley was already under arrest at the time of the shooting. The accomplice who actually fired the fatal shot could not be executed due to his young age"
A number of people are claimed to have been innocent victims of the death penalty. Newly-available DNA evidence has allowed the exoneration and release of more than 15 death row inmates since 1992 in the United States."
That is just a little example, there are hundreds more. So yes, even I can see where Flynn and the others are coming from.
Banned
Forensics meanwhile, has come on an awful lot in 63 years. And someone invented CCTV, helmet cams and smartphones with built in video and still cameras in between times.
1K.Orger
I totally agree with you, I am just trying to see it from their point of view, as to why they disagree with the death penalty. In this day and age, with the use of DNA and other such things you mentioned, the reality is nobody should be wrongly convicted of any crime. And although, the human rights people will disagree with me, I believe everybody's DNA, fingerprints and so on, should be on file, it would save such a lot of bother and time, but I know that is controversial.
.Orger
I have been following this thread, it has some very interesting and valid points of view. My opinion of the Death penalty or judicial execution is this. Some time ago I read a biography called Executioner Pierrepoint the story of Albert Pierrepoint he was the last person in the UK to hold the position of Chief Executioner although there were other Executioners after him no one else was ever appointed the title of Chief Executioner. It has been estimated that Albert executed some 600 plus. Mr Pierrepoints opinion was that hanging was never a deterrent for murder. Therefore I can only conclude that execution has not or ever been a deterrent for murder but a punishment, the ultimate punishment as no one has ever returned from an execution. On the other-side of the coin there is also the opinion if you are to murder people in cold blood then you have extinguished the lives of innocent people therefore if you fail to execute the perpetrator then innocent people have died for nothing, but there are those who don't care who get executed as long as it is someone, before you execute someone there would need to be in the judicial system a safe guard of beyond any doubt not just that of reasonable doubt. I believe the Death penalty should be re-instated, as there are many people out there who have murdered innocent people just for fun, the Death penalty is not a deterrent it is a punishment.
1K.Orger
I totally agree with Mavericks post.........the Death penalty is a punishment!!
Once the original Grumpy Owld Man but alas no more
.Orger
I believe the Death penalty should be re-instated, as there are many people out there who have murdered innocent people just for fun, the Death penalty is not a deterrent it is a punishment.
i have always believed the death penalty should be reinstated. not only is it a punishment ,it is also a deterrent . in fact i believe it should never have been abolished
.Orger
No Jacko, the death penalty was never a deterrent for murder because it never stopped anyone who was hell bent on killing someone from doing so. The reason for the abolish ion of the death penalty was that to many innocent people lost their lives at the gallows. The judicial system failed the innocent victims of murder, those who were murdered and those who were innocently executed. Our judicial system convicts on the principle of beyond reasonable doubt, not on the principle of beyond any doubt.
1K.Orger
But should it not be the punishment for those who deserve to be punished because they have committed the crime as opposed to those who will be punished because circumstantial evidence shows they might just possibly have committed the crime? Imo..... to sentence any punter to death....certainty is what is required..not reasonable doubt...and with the best will in the world, forensic science is in its infancy....and may never grow up enough enough to be accepted unequivocally as incontrovertible, unassailable fact.
Why would any family demand the death of someone...anyone....... who did not commit the crime just so they get revenge for the death of their loved one.......whoever has to pay the price of that closure? Consider the fact that if the executed person is shown not to have been guilty, where is the closure......or do all the families of victims believe in a death for their death.........even when that is not the death of the culprit?
If anyone has been sentenced to death on the balance of probabilities..........they should be allowed to live in prison until there is some certainty..and then execute them when certainty has been proven,.
1K.Orger
Punishment is something a transgressor is supposed to learn from. Once dead the executed do not think, "Ok, I've learned my lesson, I won't do that again."
It's a - failed - deterrent, as is amply demonstrated in the USA where murder and other capital crimes continue unabated.
Radical, Man!
.Orger
i have my opinion and you have your s ... thats fair enough . different strokes for different folks. im of the opinion that .someone who kills for gain , will alway s weigh up the sentence he/she would expect if caught premeditated murder. my conclusion is if one deliberately kills another he/she should be legally executed.
after all the murdered person is forever dead . why should a murderer be allowed the life that he/she took. ...... bring back hanging. thats all they deserve .
my opinion and i stand by my beliefs .
p/s.... if it ever came to a public vote to bring the death penalty back, i would have no hesitation in voting for it.
Last edited by jacko; 25-Apr-13 at 10:14.
1K.Orger
Interesting stuff, split 50 / 50 pro - anti death : for those pro, the basic argument is based on an eye for an eye, despite the fact that we would need a 100% infallible justice system before hand on heart we can execute some one, that as all history, proves, such a system is impossible due to largely irrational human behaviour. So some one is convicted and executed and after the event is proved innocent or aspects of the trial / evidence were suspect, ah the pro brigade say..a very small percentage would be affected so we can live with it as long as the truly guilty swing...however some one is dead and they cannot be reprieved can they, a mistake cannot be righted ? So I ask the pro brigade would you like yourself or one of your family to be in such a position ? Obviously not. If so see a doctor you need help !
1K.Orger
Are they indeed ? Science is a bit player in the justice process which is 100% based on the subjective interpretation of so called facts. ie Defence / prosecution each playing out a game : how to win the game : money...because money buys anything.
1K.Orger
Nah Im sussing you here...why bring the damn subject up eh !! Bread and circuses dear chap !
1K.Orger
Derek William Bentley (30 June 1933 – 28 January 1953) was a British teenager hanged for the murder of a police officer, committed in the course of a burglary attempt. The murder of the police officer was committed by a friend and accomplice of Bentley's, Christopher Craig, then aged 16. Bentley was convicted as a party to the murder, by the English law principle of common criminal purpose "joint enterprise". The judge in court sentenced Bentley to death based on an interpretation of the phrase "Let him have it" (Bentley's alleged instruction to Craig), describing Bentley as "mentally aiding the murder of Police Constable Sidney Miles".
At the time of the burglary attempt death, murder was a capital offence in England and Wales. Minors under 18 were not sentenced to death: consequently, of the two defendants, only Bentley faced the death penalty if convicted. The doctrine of felony murder or "constructive malice" meant that a charge of manslaughter was not an option, as the "malicious intent" of the armed robbery was transferred to the shooting. Bentley's best defence was that he was effectively under arrest when Miles was killed.
NOW CAN EVERYONE SEE THAT THE JUSTICE SYSTEM IS AND CAN BE IRRATIONAL : IF THIS STILL DOESNT CONVINCE YOU, WOULD YOU STAND IN FRONT OF THE BOYS PARENTS AND FAMILY AND SAY HIS STATE MURDER ( AS THAT IS WHAT IT WAS ) WAS FOR THE GREATER GOOD, OK A MISTAKE WAS MADE, BUT HELL WHATS A MISTAKE AS LONG AS WE STRING UP THE REALLY GUILTY AND SAVE A COUPLE OF QUID !!!! GET REAL FOR GODS SAKE
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case
1K.Orger
THE JURY didn't want Derek Bentley to hang. They had listened to the cocky, almost boastful evidence of 16-year-old Christopher Craig in the witness-box, casually admitting to owning 40 guns and frankly accepting that he had been the instigator of the criminal enterprise that had resulted in his killing PC Sidney Miles. They had contrasted that with the 19-year-old Bentley's pathetic, child-like performance, showing in nearly every answer his lack of comprehension, his low IQ, his mental dullness. The jury knew that Craig could not hang because of his age; and for Bentley, they recommended that he be shown mercy. Unfortunately, Bentley had the bad luck to be tried and sentenced by one of the last of the hanging judges, Rayner Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice.We don't have hanging judges today. There are, to be sure, judges who support the death penalty and would be prepared to impose it. But the concept of the hanging judge implied more than mere support for capital punishment. It meant an unwavering belief in "an eye for an eye", a refusal to accept that the act of killing could have any mitigating circumstances, an enthusiasm for putting on the black cap before announcing an imminent execution, and an element of sadistic pleasure in ordering a fellow human being's death.
Lord Goddard fitted all the criteria. A brilliant lawyer, he was also a domineering bully with viciously punitive views on all aspects of criminal justice policy. His idea of fun, after a legal dinner, was to take part in a "boat race", in which two groups of lawyers and judges would arrange themselves on the dining-hall floor in the formation of a rowing eight, and shuffle on their bottoms towards a finishing line. More sinister and perverted was his habit, according to his clerk, of ejaculating when passing a death sentence, so that a fresh pair of trousers had to be brought to court on those occasions.
Banned
Seems then that the "Let's mollycoddle the accused, just on the off chance that they might be innocent, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary" brigade, have no issue with kiddies being molested, women being raped or the innocent victim being murdered.I guess we should also dispense with prisons in case anyone mistakenly gets sent there too and is deprived of days, months or years of their lives which they will never be able to get back if we got it wrong. Safest then not to convict anyone of anything, just in case.
1K.Orger
That would appear Flynn and Rob's reasoning, personally if they have reasonable doubt at court they are innocent if not why keep them at horrific cost to tax payers. (I'm beginning to sound like a tory commenting on benefits) so no more from me.
Hating people because of their colour is wrong. And it doesn't matter which colour does the hating. It's just plain wrong.
Muhammad Ali
Banned
I would be a fairly effective deterrent for repeat offenders who go on to murder again, within a week of getting out of prison.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks