View Full Version : The Death Penalty
John Little
21-Apr-13, 17:11
I have no wish to discuss the death penalty.
If I start a thread on say - cars, and someone brings up the subject of hamsters, I still wish to discuss the subject of cars.
If I wish to discuss the nature of Democracy, then that is what I wish to discuss.
If someone wishes to discuss a particular aspect of Democracy, then they are fully entitled to do so; but if it becomes a diversion then it merits another thread.
There appears to be a constituency on these boards for a discussion of the Death Penalty which is one of the topics that one might bring into a micro-examination of hundreds of Democratic issues, but since my intention was rather more Meta I decline to take part in this discussion.
This is something I did not bring up and had/ have no wish to discuss, for good reasons of my own.
I am led to wonder that if I started a thread on any topic whatsoever if it could be turned into a discussion of the Death Penalty; maybe I should start one on Ham Sandwiches and see where that goes.
However, if you wish to do so, please discuss the Death Penalty on this thread.
I shall not be taking part, shall not be advertising my views and will not post on this thread at all.
Knock yersel' out guys...
Civilised countries don't have state sanctioned murder.
The USA has the death penalty, I see no end of murder, rape, robbery etc. in that country.
cptdodger
21-Apr-13, 17:37
Civilised countries don't have state sanctioned murder.
The USA has the death penalty, I see no end of murder, rape, robbery etc. in that country.
And if you look at "The Boston Bombing" thread, you will see that America can use the death penalty when they see fit, regardless whether the crime was committed in a state which sanctions it, or not.
This is the link which explains it better than I can - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-death-penalty/2099413/
i d like to know your views if it was your wife ,husband ,son ,daughter, brother, sister, mother or father that was murdered . would you still think 8 or 9 years in a cushy nick would be punishment enough. im not a believer in god , but do snt it not state somewhere in it , an eye for an eye???
we do not have a deterent for crime in this country , human rights my arse . the dead victim s never got that option . it s about time some old values were reinstalled.
cptdodger
21-Apr-13, 19:42
i d like to know your views if it was your wife ,husband ,son ,daughter, brother, sister, mother or father that was murdered . would you still think 8 or 9 years in a cushy nick would be punishment enough. im not a believer in god , but do snt it not state somewhere in it , an eye for an eye???
we do not have a deterent for crime in this country , human rights my arse . the dead victim s never got that option . it s about time some old values were reinstalled.
I never stated whether I was for or against the death penalty. I was just providing an example of what is happening in America in reference to the Boston Marathon Bombs.
Only one thing to discuss. Does it work as in stop or reduce violent crime? In any place or time it has been used, the answer is no.
MerlinScot
21-Apr-13, 20:59
Only one thing to discuss. Does it work as in stop or reduce violent crime? In any place or time it has been used, the answer is no.
Who cares, let's hang 'em all....
John Little, you started a thread to discuss the death penalty without wishing to discuss it LOL
No, it's not a deterrent but a life in jail isn't either and tax payers have to pay for the convicts for years. So if we see the issue from the human rights side, I can define the matter as controversial and difficult to settle on a common ground... On the practical side, there would be less scum in the national jails....
Who cares, let's hang 'em all....
John Little, you started a thread to discuss the death penalty without wishing to discuss it LOL
No, it's not a deterrent but a life in jail isn't either and tax payers have to pay for the convicts for years. So if we see the issue from the human rights side, I can define the matter as controversial and difficult to settle on a common ground... On the practical side, there would be less scum in the national jails....
The major problem with the death penalty is those who have been found guilty and then many years late found to of been innocent. There have been a number of instances where this has happened, including so called 'child killers'.
How do you bring these people back to life, once they have been hung?
tonkatojo
21-Apr-13, 22:02
Only one thing to discuss. Does it work as in stop or reduce violent crime? In any place or time it has been used, the answer is no.
I can guarantee the hung person won't kill again, not so with a prison sentence.
tonkatojo
21-Apr-13, 22:05
The major problem with the death penalty is those who have been found guilty and then many years late found to of been innocent. There have been a number of instances where this has happened, including so called 'child killers'.
How do you bring these people back to life, once they have been hung?
In the past mistakes were made, with the advance in science DNA and the likes the likelihood of mistakes are very much at a minimal.
I can guarantee the hung person won't kill again, not so with a prison sentence.
Well think of this, the leading example; states in America where death row is populated primarily by the poor and underprivilaged, those who can't afford the best representation or those society values less. Do you want to be part of that system?
Rich people's sons and daughters don't end up on death row.
tonkatojo
21-Apr-13, 22:10
Well think of this, the leading example; states in America where death row is populated primarily by the poor and underprivilaged, those who can't afford the best representation or those society values less. Do you want to be part of that system?
Rich people's sons and daughters don't end up on death row.
If they are guilty and proved so, so be it, as i stated the age we live in with science etc mistakes should be minimal almost impossible. But your point taken over there.
MerlinScot
21-Apr-13, 22:19
The major problem with the death penalty is those who have been found guilty and then many years late found to of been innocent. There have been a number of instances where this has happened, including so called 'child killers'.
How do you bring these people back to life, once they have been hung?
Tell this to a crime victim's family. There are more guilty criminals out of jail than innocent people in. A perfect justice system doesn't exist.
Do you know that the 'excuse' you just mentioned is the reason why 95% of sex offenders are at large in Scotland? Well I'd prefer them hung, to be honest..instead of looking over my shoulder all the time when it's dark.
i d like to know your views if it was your wife ,husband ,son ,daughter, brother, sister, mother or father that was murdered . would you still think 8 or 9 years in a cushy nick would be punishment enough. im not a believer in god , but do snt it not state somewhere in it , an eye for an eye???
we do not have a deterent for crime in this country , human rights my arse . the dead victim s never got that option . it s about time some old values were reinstalled.
That's why we have judges and don't leave 'justice' to ill-educated vigilante groups.
Nigel Shelton
21-Apr-13, 22:50
A ham sandwich could be construed as the death penalty for a pig !!!! And thats about as stupid as a load of old tosh that gets put on here by the same old culprits over and over again, Dont even think of Dissing me.LoL
cptdodger
22-Apr-13, 00:00
Only one thing to discuss. Does it work as in stop or reduce violent crime? In any place or time it has been used, the answer is no.
As strange as this may sound, I do'nt think the death penalty was ever meant to be a deterrent, it is a punishment. Take that person in Norway that slaughtered 77 people in 2011. The death penalty would not have deterred him. He was sentenced to 21 years in prison which means, if he convinces the "powers that be" that he has reformed, he could be walking the streets when he is 53. I fail to see the justice in that.
From Wikipedia - "The second psychiatric evaluation was published one week before the trial, concluding that Breivik was not psychotic during the attacks nor during the evaluation"
Which means this guy was perfectly sane when he carried out this atrocity. I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but I for one would not lose any sleep (if Norway had the death penalty) if he had been given the death penalty.
Personally speaking... I would far prefer the Death Penalty over Life Imprisonment.
Personally speaking... I would far prefer the Death Penalty over Life Imprisonment.As the criminal or victim (victim's family)?
As the criminal or victim (victim's family)?
Sorry... Should have been more specific...
As the Criminal.
I think this may be a sign of the apparent problems that seem to be with the justice system, and that is partially perceptive and subjective.
On one hand, lets say the surviving Boston suspect was in the UK. He'd have several murders, conspiracy, explosives and weapons charges against him that the potential prison term would be seriously long. Say 'life' minimum 40 year term.
On the other hand, say one half of a couple kills the other in a premeditated attack, in effect murder. * But pleads guilty to manslaughter and states diminished responsibility, gets a decent lawyer, potentially their out in 4.
But, if we had a 'life for a life' death sentence, which would be fair? Or more fairer? Or more unfair?
Drifting, or crossing the threads a bit. This is what is intriguing me about the the Boston suspect. If I were in his shoes, I think I would have potted myself!
MerlinScot
22-Apr-13, 09:08
Which means this guy was perfectly sane when he carried out this atrocity. I'm sorry if this offends anybody, but I for one would not lose any sleep (if Norway had the death penalty) if he had been given the death penalty.
Well in that case death penalty would have been appropriated... anyway, given that in Norway there is no death penalty, life imprisonment could be used... the 'funny' part about that massacre is that Norway's justice system never faced such a slaughter in its history so I guess there was not a punishment suitable for such a criminal.
The major problem with the death penalty is those who have been found guilty and then many years late found to of been innocent. There have been a number of instances where this has happened, including so called 'child killers'.
How do you bring these people back to life, once they have been hung?
Your right , but with modern forensic s , DNA and different policing method s today , that would be somewhere like a 99.99 chance of occurring .
Why should the like,s of Hyndley ,Brady , Robert Black and the Yorkshire Ripper , ETC ETC be allowed to live a life . a life of far better comfort than our pensioners have . at the expense of the TAX PAYER,.??.... sorry , but i am in favour of the return of the death penalty for such hidious crimes. and take away all the goody s the cons get in jail, these were implimented to keep the con s pacified. get tough with these parasites , treat them with the contempt that they deserve .
Sorry... Should have been more specific...
As the Criminal.
Even if you were innocent and wrongly convicted?
Tell this to a crime victim's family. There are more guilty criminals out of jail than innocent people in. A perfect justice system doesn't exist.
Do you know that the 'excuse' you just mentioned is the reason why 95% of sex offenders are at large in Scotland? Well I'd prefer them hung, to be honest..instead of looking over my shoulder all the time when it's dark.
You would be happy then if you were falsely convicted of murder or a sex crime and hung? There have been many cases of wrongful conviction.
In the past mistakes were made, with the advance in science DNA and the likes the likelihood of mistakes are very much at a minimal.
I wish! Most forensic evidence is down to interpretation by individuals or as a result of running a computer programme written by individuals and the comparators input by individuals. Wherever people are involved, you are going to get mistakes. Improper handling of evidence will produce flawed results and visual matching of evidence against comparators is a subjective exercise
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/forensic-analysis-methods/
Some excerpts.......
In 2009, a Houston police crime lab audit found irregularities in more than half of fingerprint examinations sampled. Officials hired consultants to review 4,300 cases and work through a 6,000 case backlog.
Houston shut its police crime lab's DNA division for several years after 2002 because of problems with the education and training of examiners, misleading testimony and improper evidence storage, leading to at least three exonerations and retesting of thousands of cases.
Professionals declared erroneous handwriting matches or genuine signatures in 6.5 percent and 3.4 percent of cases, respectively, in recent studies.
The Santa Clara County, Calif., district attorney replaced his crime lab chief after a murder case was dropped in 2007 and a wrongful armed robbery conviction was overturned in 2003 because of errors by a laboratory fiber expert.
The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation eliminated its bloodstain pattern analysis unit in 2011 after an examiner was videotaped celebrating after reproducing a result sought by a prosecutor.
CSI and NCIS are not real life.......if only because they tend to catch the mistakes before a conviction....mostly.
I am not against the death penalty per se. I would never say I was, because I know nobody who has been murdered...my opinion might well become more polarised if that ever happened.....but I'm inclined to think I would need to be a lot more certain of a righteous conviction than is possible currently. An eye for an eye only works if you can be certain the eye you are taking actually belongs to the killer. Any convenient person's eye does not give the same closure.
As it is presently, I am against the death penalty because there are still too many mistakes being made in investigation and forensics, through incompetence, poor training etc. I do believe that, until we can prove, without any reasonable doubt, the guilt of an individual, executing that individual is little different to murder in itself. I wouldn't commit murder myself....why would I approve the state doing it in my name?
I'd make life imprisonment life imprisonment, though....but can anyone explain to me, why is it murder if you regularly carry a knife or gun out with you and use them to kill someone once.....either when sober or under the influence of drink or drugs.....and is not murder if you get into a car, and kill someone either by driving under the influence of drink or drugs... or by driving at speed recklessly or dangerously even when sober?
macadamia
22-Apr-13, 14:29
The second a murderer kills, two things happen. He resigns his membership of the human race, and is conscious of having done so. Secondly, he becomes the least of all breathing creatures, and he knows it. From that moment, he lives in a prison of his own making. He can no longer mix in free society. The shadow of his crime hangs over him. The days of his remaining life drag behind him, an anchor of misery. His torment is to relive, like a loop of film, the occasion, reality and substance of that murder. He knows he is guilty, and he knows he is different to others in a diabolical way. He can never relax again. He can never enjoy easy social interaction, fall in love, or laugh spontaneously. He is ever on guard against himself.
Putting him in prison for a fixed term, short, long, or for life, or ending his life, is of no great extra moment, except to give society some relief, and illusion of justice. He is not ours to judge. He has judged himself.
And been found most terribly wanting.
tonkatojo
22-Apr-13, 15:44
I wish! Most forensic evidence is down to interpretation by individuals or as a result of running a computer programme written by individuals and the comparators input by individuals. Wherever people are involved, you are going to get mistakes. Improper handling of evidence will produce flawed results and visual matching of evidence against comparators is a subjective exercise
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/forensic-analysis-methods/
Some excerpts.......
In 2009, a Houston police crime lab audit found irregularities in more than half of fingerprint examinations sampled. Officials hired consultants to review 4,300 cases and work through a 6,000 case backlog.
Houston shut its police crime lab's DNA division for several years after 2002 because of problems with the education and training of examiners, misleading testimony and improper evidence storage, leading to at least three exonerations and retesting of thousands of cases.
Professionals declared erroneous handwriting matches or genuine signatures in 6.5 percent and 3.4 percent of cases, respectively, in recent studies.
The Santa Clara County, Calif., district attorney replaced his crime lab chief after a murder case was dropped in 2007 and a wrongful armed robbery conviction was overturned in 2003 because of errors by a laboratory fiber expert.
The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation eliminated its bloodstain pattern analysis unit in 2011 after an examiner was videotaped celebrating after reproducing a result sought by a prosecutor.
CSI and NCIS are not real life.......if only because they tend to catch the mistakes before a conviction....mostly.
I am not against the death penalty per se. I would never say I was, because I know nobody who has been murdered...my opinion might well become more polarised if that ever happened.....but I'm inclined to think I would need to be a lot more certain of a righteous conviction than is possible currently. An eye for an eye only works if you can be certain the eye you are taking actually belongs to the killer. Any convenient person's eye does not give the same closure.
As it is presently, I am against the death penalty because there are still too many mistakes being made in investigation and forensics, through incompetence, poor training etc. I do believe that, until we can prove, without any reasonable doubt, the guilt of an individual, executing that individual is little different to murder in itself. I wouldn't commit murder myself....why would I approve the state doing it in my name?
I'd make life imprisonment life imprisonment, though....but can anyone explain to me, why is it murder if you regularly carry a knife or gun out with you and use them to kill someone once.....either when sober or under the influence of drink or drugs.....and is not murder if you get into a car, and kill someone either by driving under the influence of drink or drugs... or by driving at speed recklessly or dangerously even when sober?
Nay I disagree with life meaning life imprisonment, if someone takes a life and it is proved they should forfeit theirs not be kept for years till they expire.
Also I do not make my comments on USA ifs and buts I comment on this country GB as I live here and personally have no influence over there.
As for car hit and run driving under the influence of drugs/drink it is premeditated in my opinion and not an excuse and the same penalty as any other murder should apply, but it is only my opinion.
Nay I disagree with life meaning life imprisonment, if someone takes a life and it is proved they should forfeit theirs not be kept for years till they expire.
Also I do not make my comments on USA ifs and buts I comment on this country GB as I live here and personally have no influence over there.
As for car hit and run driving under the influence of drugs/drink it is premeditated in my opinion and not an excuse and the same penalty as any other murder should apply, but it is only my opinion.
Life imprisonment - if it actually means life and they are guaranteed to spend their days until they die behind bars - is more of a deterrent than a quick and easy death sentence. The fact is the death penalty doesn't deter people from murder. All it does is ensure that sometimes entirely innocent people, the mentally ill, and those who cannot afford a good barrister - are put to death.
We have an existing example in the USA's various Death Rows, almost all those on Death Row are poor, uneducated, black, or mentally ill - and they repeatedly put people to death who have had new evidence proving they were innocent because the victim's families demand vengeance, even if it means the death of an innocent.
That isn't justice, not by a long chalk.
MerlinScot
22-Apr-13, 17:30
You would be happy then if you were falsely convicted of murder or a sex crime and hung? There have been many cases of wrongful conviction.
I've been a victim of crime and surely I've always been more concerned about the herd of criminals getting away with their actions than the few innocent people who get falsely convicted.
And if I was one of the latter but I knew that thanks to the justice system hundreds of criminals are secured under bars or hung, I would accept my fate.
Yet, it's not like that and many criminals escape justice. I've volunteered for many charity associations and supported crime victims too, so believe me... there are not many wrongful convictions.
The problem is that to defend a bunch of innocent people, we forgot all the crime victims who have no justice at all, hundreds if not thousands of them every year.
Even if you were innocent and wrongly convicted?
In that case then probably No, I'd be hanging on to the hope that the conviction would be overturned.... So, by virtue of being innocent then the death penalty would have had no deterrent effect whatsoever.
However... If I was guilty then the death penalty would be my preferential choice so once again no deterrence.
Life imprisonment would be more of a deterrence, however, I'm sure that if I did murder anybody I'd get away with it so nothing would be enough to deter me, or, I'd be in the frame of mind where I just didn't care so once again no deterrence.
tonkatojo
22-Apr-13, 20:34
Life imprisonment - if it actually means life and they are guaranteed to spend their days until they die behind bars - is more of a deterrent than a quick and easy death sentence. The fact is the death penalty doesn't deter people from murder. All it does is ensure that sometimes entirely innocent people, the mentally ill, and those who cannot afford a good barrister - are put to death.
We have an existing example in the USA's various Death Rows, almost all those on Death Row are poor, uneducated, black, or mentally ill - and they repeatedly put people to death who have had new evidence proving they were innocent because the victim's families demand vengeance, even if it means the death of an innocent.
That isn't justice, not by a long chalk.
What goes on in USA does not have any bearing to me, I am concerned with this country as I have no influence on USA justice.
I am concerned as to why I/we as taxpayers should keep someone proved guilty till they expire, or are you saying we should keep them on the hope some super Sherlock will prove them innocent ?. I advocate that if there is any doubt they should have been proved innocent.
What goes on in USA does not have any bearing to me, I am concerned with this country as I have no influence on USA justice.
I am concerned as to why I/we as taxpayers should keep someone proved guilty till they expire, or are you saying we should keep them on the hope some super Sherlock will prove them innocent ?. I advocate that if there is any doubt they should have been proved innocent.
I use the USA of an example of how capital punishment does not work, frequently murders the innocent, and tends not to apply to the rich and the powerful.
If you think that will be any different in the UK you're very much mistaken.
And if I was one of the latter but I knew that thanks to the justice system hundreds of criminals are secured under bars or hung, I would accept my fate.
I do not believe that for one second.
tonkatojo
23-Apr-13, 09:24
I use the USA of an example of how capital punishment does not work, frequently murders the innocent, and tends not to apply to the rich and the powerful.
If you think that will be any different in the UK you're very much mistaken.
With the current government of UK doing away with as much legal aid as possible you have a point, but the I'm alright tory doesn't give a toss.
MerlinScot
23-Apr-13, 10:10
I do not believe that for one second.
You should. The important part is "thanks to the justice system hundreds of criminals are secured", which is not the case, far from that.
Better hundreds go free than one innocent life be taken.
MerlinScot
23-Apr-13, 10:23
Better hundreds go free than one innocent life be taken.
That's what happens. But your statement is an offence to all crime victims, Flynn.
You shouldn't disregard the feelings and the plights of all people, of any gender or race, who don't see any justice at all every year.
That's what happens. But your statement is an offence to all crime victims, Flynn.
You shouldn't disregard the feelings and the plights of all people, of any gender or race, who don't see any justice at all every year.
I see that as less of an affront than that you offer to all the families you would condemn to lose innocent loved ones in an unjust society that puts the innocent to death 'just in case'.
The second a murderer kills, two things happen. He resigns his membership of the human race, and is conscious of having done so. Secondly, he becomes the least of all breathing creatures, and he knows it. From that moment, he lives in a prison of his own making. He can no longer mix in free society. The shadow of his crime hangs over him. The days of his remaining life drag behind him, an anchor of misery. His torment is to relive, like a loop of film, the occasion, reality and substance of that murder. He knows he is guilty, and he knows he is different to others in a diabolical way. He can never relax again. He can never enjoy easy social interaction, fall in love, or laugh spontaneously. He is ever on guard against himself.
Putting him in prison for a fixed term, short, long, or for life, or ending his life, is of no great extra moment, except to give society some relief, and illusion of justice. He is not ours to judge. He has judged himself.
And been found most terribly wanting.
but according to radical muslim ruling he will become a martyr and go straight to their heaven to collect his seven virgin,s. (what a load of arse muck )
seems to me those radicals are so bloody stupid letting themselve s be brainwashed into that line of thinking . ignorance at it s peak.
MerlinScot
23-Apr-13, 14:37
I see that as less of an affront than that you offer to all the families you would condemn to lose innocent loved ones in an unjust society that puts the innocent to death 'just in case'.
Well, then I should post your comment on a Victim Support forum or Rape Crisis forum so you can explain to them that they should be patient and condoning because to save 0,01% of innocent unlucky people we left the rest of rapists, abusers and murderers out of jail or, if convicted, they were behind bars for a ridiculous amount of time.
And you have to explain this to the parents of raped and tortured children, to the husbands of murdered wives, to the children of a robbed, raped and killed mother.
If you are able to do that, only then I will respect your opinion. Until you keep disregarding 'victims' on a neutral ground... well that's easy, isn't it?
Yours is an unjust society Flynn. And I'm nearly 100% sure that you reason like that because you were not involved directly with the problem and therefore, in a way or another you don't really care. The innocentist 'herd', in any argument, is always the one untouched by the issue.
Well, then I should post your comment on a Victim Support forum or Rape Crisis forum so you can explain to them that they should be patient and condoning because to save 0,01% of innocent unlucky people we left the rest of rapists, abusers and murderers out of jail or, if convicted, they were behind bars for a ridiculous amount of time.
And you have to explain this to the parents of raped and tortured children, to the husbands of murdered wives, to the children of a robbed, raped and killed mother.
If you are able to do that, only then I will respect your opinion. Until you keep disregarding 'victims' on a neutral ground... well that's easy, isn't it?
Yours is an unjust society Flynn. And I'm nearly 100% sure that you reason like that because you were not involved directly with the problem and therefore, in a way or another you don't really care. The innocentist 'herd', in any argument, is always the one untouched by the issue.
Do whatever you want, I will not condone executing innocent people. Ever.
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.
cptdodger
23-Apr-13, 20:26
Well, then I should post your comment on a Victim Support forum or Rape Crisis forum
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christie_%28murderer%29), 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment) in the UK in 1965.
Derek Bentley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley) was a mentally challenged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentally_challenged) young man who was executed in 1953, also in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.[/URL] Newly-available [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_evidence"]DNA evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution#cite_note-3) has allowed the exoneration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoneration) and release of more than 15 death row (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
orkneycadian
23-Apr-13, 21:36
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.
cptdodger
23-Apr-13, 21:57
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.
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.
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.
. 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 totally agree with Mavericks post.........the Death penalty is a punishment!!
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
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
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.
I totally agree with Mavericks post.........the Death penalty is a punishment!!
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,.
I totally agree with Mavericks post.........the Death penalty is a punishment!!
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.
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.
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.
rob murray
25-Apr-13, 15:36
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 !
rob murray
25-Apr-13, 15:40
In the past mistakes were made, with the advance in science DNA and the likes the likelihood of mistakes are very much at a minimal.
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.
rob murray
25-Apr-13, 15:41
I have no wish to discuss the death penalty.
If I start a thread on say - cars, and someone brings up the subject of hamsters, I still wish to discuss the subject of cars.
If I wish to discuss the nature of Democracy, then that is what I wish to discuss.
If someone wishes to discuss a particular aspect of Democracy, then they are fully entitled to do so; but if it becomes a diversion then it merits another thread.
There appears to be a constituency on these boards for a discussion of the Death Penalty which is one of the topics that one might bring into a micro-examination of hundreds of Democratic issues, but since my intention was rather more Meta I decline to take part in this discussion.
This is something I did not bring up and had/ have no wish to discuss, for good reasons of my own.
I am led to wonder that if I started a thread on any topic whatsoever if it could be turned into a discussion of the Death Penalty; maybe I should start one on Ham Sandwiches and see where that goes.
However, if you wish to do so, please discuss the Death Penalty on this thread.
I shall not be taking part, shall not be advertising my views and will not post on this thread at all.
Knock yersel' out guys...
Nah Im sussing you here...why bring the damn subject up eh !! Bread and circuses dear chap !
rob murray
25-Apr-13, 15:50
Derek William Bentley (30 June 1933 – 28 January 1953) was a British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_people) teenager hanged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging) for the murder of a police officer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_officer), committed in the course of a burglary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_law) principle of common criminal purpose "joint enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose)". 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
rob murray
25-Apr-13, 16:24
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.
orkneycadian
25-Apr-13, 17:24
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.
tonkatojo
25-Apr-13, 18:56
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.
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.
orkneycadian
25-Apr-13, 19:57
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.
I would be a fairly effective deterrent for repeat offenders who go on to murder again, within a week of getting out of prison.
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.
Really? Is that the best you can do? A strawman argument?
I will never condone executing innocent people. Ever.
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.
And what if that person turns out to be innocent? You have then committed murder.
orkneycadian
25-Apr-13, 21:01
Why is it the anti death penalty club always gloss over the key fact? Its not for when there is doubt, only when there is no doubt, whatsoever.
DNA + irrefutable CCTV + reliable witness + the perp saying "Yeah, I done 'im good guv - 'e had it comin to 'im - An I'll be back to get 'is bruvver the week I get let out again"
Why is it the anti death penalty club always gloss over the key fact? Its not for when there is doubt, only when there is no doubt, whatsoever.
DNA + irrefutable CCTV + reliable witness + the perp saying "Yeah, I done 'im good guv - 'e had it comin to 'im - An I'll be back to get 'is bruvver the week I get let out again"
And why does the main thrust of those so keen on the death penalty concentrate so much on the cost to the taxpayer of jailing them for any length of time....far less for their natural life? Would they be considering that killing them would reduce ongoing Government costs..and save them an increase in income tax/VAT?
How often has DNA + irrefutable CCTV + reliable witness + the perp saying "Yeah, I done 'im good guv - 'e had it comin to 'im - An I'll be back to get 'is bruvver the week I get let out again" ever happened? We can all do completely irrational and , frankly, stupid to try to make a point on forums.....but in the end.....the only question which needs to be asked.....and answered honestly....is Would you personally be happy to have someone not guilty of murder excecuted for it.......and would you be just as happy if it was your child being executed despite his/her innocence?
orkneycadian
25-Apr-13, 22:32
the only question which needs to be asked.....and answered honestly....is Would you personally be happy to have someone not guilty of murder excecuted for it.......and would you be just as happy if it was your child being executed despite his/her innocence?
Of course not. But thats the point that is so blatantly obvious to some, but so invisible to others....
If someone is not guilty, you do not execute them
If there are doubts over their innocence (or guilt), you do not execute them
If someone is downright guilty, beyond doubt, you do.
Why is that concept so simple to grasp?
OK, so now, reverse question time.
Would you, and answer honestly now, be willing to send someone to jail, perhaps never to be released again, or even at the very least 15 years, if they could be innocent?
Of course not. But thats the point that is so blatantly obvious to some, but so invisible to others....
If someone is not guilty, you do not execute them
If there are doubts over their innocence (or guilt), you do not execute them
If someone is downright guilty, beyond doubt, you do.
Why is that concept so simple to grasp?
OK, so now, reverse question time.
Would you, and answer honestly now, be willing to send someone to jail, perhaps never to be released again, or even at the very least 15 years, if they could be innocent?
Preferable to death.... There is a chance that the truth would come to light & they can be released from jail... You can never be released from death....
If... Upon conviction... The convicted was given the choice of life imprisonment or death & they chose death, would you respect their decision?
orkneycadian
25-Apr-13, 23:24
Preferable to death.... There is a chance that the truth would come to light & they can be released from jail... You can never be released from death....And how do you return their freedom to them, that you have deprived them of for much of their life by erroneously imprisoning them?In any case, your point again relates to an uncertain conviction. Not a certain one.
i d like to know your views if it was your wife ,husband ,son ,daughter, brother, sister, mother or father that was murdered . would you still think 8 or 9 years in a cushy nick would be punishment enough. im not a believer in god , but do snt it not state somewhere in it , an eye for an eye???
we do not have a deterent for crime in this country , human rights my arse . the dead victim s never got that option . it s about time some old values were reinstalled.
And would you be happy if your innocent child was hanged for something he/she did not do because circumstantial evidence?
And would you be happy if your innocent child was hanged for something he/she did not do because circumstantial evidence?
Evidence is rarely circumstantial these days, what with the developement of forensic science these days, I watch CSI, they are magic
And would you be happy if your innocent child was hanged for something he/she did not do because circumstantial evidence?
I'm sure if it was the job of a parent to judge their kids in the courts (irrespective of the validity of the evidence) the jails would be largely empty. [lol]
orkneycadian
25-Apr-13, 23:45
And would you be happy if your innocent child was hanged for something he/she did not do because circumstantial evidence?What's the obsession with hanging innocent people?The point of debate is that it is only for the guilty, proven beyond all doubt.The innocent, the perhaps innocent and your innocent daughter really have nothing to fear.
cptdodger
25-Apr-13, 23:49
Just out of interest, have any of you have done jury service ? I have done it twice, once in England, Maidstone Crown Court, and in Scotland, Dundee Sheriff Court. The two systems being completely different.
Of course not. But thats the point that is so blatantly obvious to some, but so invisible to others....
If someone is not guilty, you do not execute them
If there are doubts over their innocence (or guilt), you do not execute them
If someone is downright guilty, beyond doubt, you do.
Why is that concept so simple to grasp?
OK, so now, reverse question time.
Would you, and answer honestly now, be willing to send someone to jail, perhaps never to be released again, or even at the very least 15 years, if they could be innocent?
If it was a choice between executing them or not.......then I would be OK with them being jailed until they could prove their innocence....never seen the point, myself of posthumous pardons...because posthumous means too bliddy late! Those who have had posthumous pardons are just as much victims as the person they were erroneously hanged for killing..but they are victims of everyone in the country via the state......and their family has no comeback as in their child's killer being prosecuted and hanged to make them feel better........so the original victim's family gets closure because someone has died to compensate for their loss...and the family of the innocent person who was hanged, because he didn't do it, but might have been in the wrong place at about the wrong time doesn't.........despite the fact that he/she was effectively murdered by the state.
You are doing black and white..all the pro-death penalty supporters are.....but jury verdicts are never black and white......."the balance of probabilities" and "beyond any reasonable doubt" never is, by definition........if there are any other feasible probabilities or any doubts even one juror thinks is reasonable, there is no certainty. Verdicts, in all court cases, barring a full confession with convincing detail, is the interpretation, after discussion, of the evidence, of fifteen people like you and me, in Scotland...and would you think that neither of us would be viewing the case bar through our own POVs, and that the other thirteen jurors would be doing the same.....really?
What's the obsession with hanging innocent people?The point of debate is that it is only for the guilty, proven beyond all doubt.The innocent, the perhaps innocent and your innocent daughter really have nothing to fear.
But that is the point......the only people who could be executed with certainty of their culpabilty are those who confess to the crime with enough detail to prove it. Anyone sentenced after a trial in the UK is as likely to be innocent as not, given that trials in the UK are little more than stages for lawyers to show they are more clever/devious than their opponent.
Way back in the 1970s when I was at college, our Law Lecturer took us to a murder trial in Inverness....and after a day sitting watching it, I, a reasonably intelligent person, left completely confused, and thanking God I wasn't a member of the jury having to come to a decision.
Neil Howie
26-Apr-13, 00:29
It would be very very difficult (if not impossible) for the guilty to be "proven beyond all doubt".
Even where dna is involved (that's not to say that it is a very good tool, but we should be careful).
Yes, there is always a possibility that the state-of-the-art DNA testing result is faulty: there might have been a contamination of the materials or the testing might not have been conducted properly, and there have definitely been mistakes made in the past that were revealed later.
Indeed, there is a very well known case in Japan (Ashikaga Case) where a man was implicated by faulty DNA evidence and later exonerated by more sophisticated DNA evidence.
here (http://wrongfulconvictionsblog.org/2012/05/07/implicated-by-dna-exonerated-by-dna-the-ashikaga-case/)
Evidence is rarely circumstantial these days, what with the developement of forensic science these days, I watch CSI, they are magic
CSI is fantasy..but fun to watch.
rob murray
26-Apr-13, 10:01
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.
Get real : so you would stand in front of an innocent executed persons family and make the "its for the greater good..a mistake was made arguement....I find your comments absolutely disgusting, I am not making a mollycoddle the accused arguement and don't dare drag me into the kiddie molestation / rapes points you make as if I condone this, I have personal experience in dealing with the horrific murder of a close relative, the murderers did their time....would it have brought my relative back if they had been hanged !!! No...: I think people like you get a thrill out of this garbage so crawl back into your cess pit
orkneycadian
26-Apr-13, 10:09
If it was a choice between executing them or not.......then I would be OK with them being jailed until they could prove their innocence
So you are happy to send someone that could be innocent to jail? To deprive them of their freedom. To deprive them of their family, maybe depriving them of seeing their children and grandchildren grow up? To wreck their career, perhaps cause them to lose their home if being in jail means they cannot keep up the mortgage payments on their house, to perhaps cause a marital breakup, to possibly cause them to descend into drug use out of boredom whilst behind bars, to cause them to "turn criminal" due to the criminal associations they will form whilst being wrongly held. You are happy to do this to an innocent person? And you believe treating innocent people in this way is civilised?
orkneycadian
26-Apr-13, 10:11
Get real : so you would stand in front of an innocent executed persons family and make the "its for the greater good..a mistake was made arguement....
Again, why do the anti's have such an obsession with executing the innocent? I can't get my head round this fixation that they have.
Execution is an absolute, if you are going to execute someone you have to be absolutely certain that they are guilty, failure to do this will result in the death of an innocent which is totally wrong. The Death penalty at the time of it's use was NEVER a deterrent for murder, I say this because I believe that History shows that of all the people hung for murder not one of them were deterred by the Death penalty, had execution worked as a deterrent there would have been no murders and no executions.
What the Death penalty was, was a punishment for murder, nothing more, nothing less.
I firmly believe that the Death penalty should be re-instated for some of the more gruesome murders committed in our society, but only if a safe guard was in place within our legal structure, whereby following a conviction for murder, the Death penalty could only be sought providing there was no doubt at all of the conviction..
So you are happy to send someone that could be innocent to jail? To deprive them of their freedom. To deprive them of their family, maybe depriving them of seeing their children and grandchildren grow up? To wreck their career, perhaps cause them to lose their home if being in jail means they cannot keep up the mortgage payments on their house, to perhaps cause a marital breakup, to possibly cause them to descend into drug use out of boredom whilst behind bars, to cause them to "turn criminal" due to the criminal associations they will form whilst being wrongly held. You are happy to do this to an innocent person? And you believe treating innocent people in this way is civilised?
No....but I'd be a lot happier to see them in jail rather than executed...wouldn't you? Sheesh!
You are completely irrational on this subject and are simply continually repeating the same opinion in different ways time after time.
Learn to read English as it is written, without reading it through a prism of...."I can't think of a suitable response so I can continue arguing, so I'll read into someones's post something which will let me open my mouth again to let my belly rumble."
We know, because you have made it abundantly clear, that you think our justice system is perfect and never makes mistakes...and whatever anyone says in response, you will use it to build a strawman.or two!
In other forums that would be called trolling.
rob murray
26-Apr-13, 20:49
Deleted : RM
rob murray
26-Apr-13, 20:51
Why is it the anti death penalty club always gloss over the key fact? Its not for when there is doubt, only when there is no doubt, whatsoever.
DNA + irrefutable CCTV + reliable witness + the perp saying "Yeah, I done 'im good guv - 'e had it comin to 'im - An I'll be back to get 'is bruvver the week I get let out again"
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
rob murray
26-Apr-13, 20:54
Again, why do the anti's have such an obsession with executing the innocent? I can't get my head round this fixation that they have.
Deleted RM : You can eat pork but cant....
Pm me I take this is as an utter insult, Id like you to say this garbage face to face...then youll suffer the concequences you perveted slime ball creep .ha ha I'd like to say it face to face but none of these people are tall enough to do that. Except for one would be murderer who's taller than me.
rob murray
26-Apr-13, 22:01
Again, why do the anti's have such an obsession with executing the innocent? I can't get my head round this fixation that they have.
Deleted : Unworthy of any reply
For many years I supported bringing back the death penalty, however even with the advances in DNA evidence etc. I now no longer think it should be because there has been cases where DNA has been shown to have been wrongly sought or has been tampered or compromised. The cases of Harold Shipman, Dennis Neilson or Ian Huntley show them as guilty without a doubt and so they would have been executed, however Barry George could also have been executed for the murder of Jill Dando, a conviction which was later overturned. So unless the accused actually admits to their guilt, and the information they provide as well as the evidence proves something only they and the investigating officers know about, I'm not happy about bringing back the death penalty. I couldn't sleep easy if I was on a jury that had found someone guilty who later turned out to be innocent.
There is an assumption which is always made on this board that being anti the death penalty means that you are anti punishment. It is never the case. Those people who think this are generally those people who cannot see outside their own experiences.
Those people who we see rubbishing the difficulties of others as weakness or idleness; those people who are so so so sure that they are right that there is no room for compassion, empathy or understanding. Those people would have us live in a country where human rights are not fixed in law, but flexible to accommodate the political machinations of the government of the day depending on whether they like you or not, where the justice system is based on vengeance and not punishment or rehabilitation, where the sick, unemployed and children who need looked after by the state would be left to survive or die with no care or consideration.
What a lovely place this board is. A place where empathy and compassion are sneered at and ridiculed as weak and stupid. The voices of those who lean towards a better place are disappearing and I am glad its heading towards summer and I have more to occupy my mind and my time just now.
A word though, be careful what you wish for
I do not base my opposition to murdering murderers on avoidance of murdering the innocent. It doesn't deter according to statistics and experts. It can even increase the murder rate in some circumstances where possible witnesses are killed to avoid them giving evidence that would lead to a murderer's death. Murderers should be punished as squidge says but not by doing unto them what was done unto the deceased.
Murdering murderers is not the solution.
orkneycadian
03-Feb-20, 20:29
Now that we are free of the restrictive shackles of the EU, and given events in London over the last few months, can we now get some proper justice going? OK, not now needed for the London Bridge and Streatham loonies, but there's plenty others who would benefit from it. Or are we going to stand by for years to come and witness even more innocent members of the public get killed?
Well I once suffered the Death Penalty.......I missed as the keeper moved off his line
orkneycadian
05-Feb-20, 07:42
If China can knock up 2 hospitals with a combined capacity of 2500 beds in a couple of weeks, surely it's not beyond is to knock up some formidable prisons in the same time?
Some of Trumps spare border wall panels to form a double perimeter, round up all the countries divil dugs and keep them in between, machine gun towers every 50 yards and prison cells made of 20 foot shipping containers. Surely we could create that in a week? Mattress on the floor (Ikea Coventry might have some doing cheap?) and a chanty, and job done. No crim would want to do time again.
North Rona is in need of a population.
flowertot
06-Feb-20, 19:16
And if it was your wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father accused of murder but vehemently denied it? You happy to watch them dangle? How many have died innocent? How many have languished in prison innocently who would have dangled!
orkneycadian
06-Feb-20, 19:51
If it were my wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father who was accused of murder, buy vehemently denied it and the irrefutable proof showed they were lying, then yes, they would have to dangle. If they don't, then someone else's wife, husband, son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father may get murdered. Possibly by a newly released murderer, or by a "copy cat" or even someone who feels that the feeble jail sentences that are dished out these days are not enough to discourage them.
Kevin Milkins
07-Feb-20, 00:46
There are some people deserve the death penalty for sure, but I’m sure there are many that have met their end unjustified with a case in point being 10 Rillington Place with Timothy Evans facing the gallows while Mr Christie was the bad guy.
What grinds my gears more is convicted killers that have admitted their guilt with no remorse and we have to pay to keep them in relative comfort for the rest of their lives.
John Coffee should never have fried. (Only spelled different.)
The Horseman
07-Feb-20, 02:05
Quote, ‘TiS better that 10 Guilty men go free, than one Innocent man be hanged!
........Sir William Blackstone circa 1760.
Same conclusion...Benjamin Franklin.
orkneycadian
07-Feb-20, 08:26
I don't think they had CCTV, video camera smartphones or bodycams in 1760
The Horseman
08-Feb-20, 00:38
I agree with your comment.
Only when there is ‘irrefutable’ evidence available.......and even then these instruments can be falsified!
orkneycadian
08-Feb-20, 01:07
Sigh,
There will be some folk who, when collapsing onto the pavement with a knife sticking out of their chest, will still believe its an optical illusion, or maybe some photoshopping.
I wonder how victims view such protectionism for murderers? "Sorry, you must have imagined it. Your nearest and dearest maybe wernt murdered after all. Your eyes deceived you, and that video evidence you captured is obviously falsified, as was simultaneously, evidence from 7 CCTV cameras and 43 onlookers who could do nothing more useful than film it on their mobiles. After all, the perp is obviously innocent, and hadnt really just been released from jail for murdering his wife. You must have imagined that too....."
The Horseman
08-Feb-20, 04:04
Honestly, it’s just not as simple as you make it out to be.
Take the Pic of your Prince William.
One camera shot shows him raising his hand.....another at a different angle shows him using the middle finger!
I am neither for nor against. BUT I wouldn’t want to be the guy who slipped thru the cracks, and was Hanged by the Neck until Dead!
orkneycadian
08-Feb-20, 09:29
I don't think you're quite understanding the meaning of irrefutable. The Prince William pictures are refutable as they don't corroborate each other.
The Horseman
08-Feb-20, 22:34
It’s not that simple.
The Judge can, and usually does disallow similar ‘fact’ evidence. If you have Too Many witness you are ‘stitching up’ the suspect.
There are many matters that cannot be introduced in evidence.
Then there is Continuity of every exhibit. Was it tampered with and the list goes on.
The natural reaction is to kill the ......wherever we live there are appropriate descriptors!
And the condemned person has to be specially segregated for many years(costs).....generally 10/20 years before all the appeals take place.
The longest time on Death Row was 40 years and the man died of natural causes.
Is it worth it?
orkneycadian
09-Feb-20, 09:33
And therein lies the problem.
All so that countless relatives of lost loved ones in the future have to ask "Why?"
Folk can blame availability of weapons, but as long as people have hands, then the issue is the availability of murderers.
No doubt the same snowflakes will today be mourning the execution of the Thai gunman, denied his right to a fair trial. Denied the right to appeal. Denied the right to go to jail and be let out in a couple of years to do it again.
No, the Thai authorities got that one right, but I wonder how many candlelit vigils will be held for him?
The Horseman
09-Feb-20, 11:59
You are correct!
And of course the Media are also to blame.
Just take the situation with the current ‘goings on’ in America, with the and Democrats who are supported by CNN, and Republicans are backed by Fox News, just to mention two opinions. Then you have the other media. e.g. newspapers and Rush Limbaugh ‘who can make their point’ any way they want.
The public look to them for guidance.
Its a continual struggle for a viewpoint, and who is to blame or not and what should occur.
The Death Penalty has always been a ‘contentious Issue’. And it will remain so.
Yes...’an eye for an eye’. But in the scheme of things is it worth it!
orkneycadian
10-Feb-20, 08:22
No doubt the same snowflakes will today be mourning the execution of the Thai gunman, denied his right to a fair trial. Denied the right to appeal. Denied the right to go to jail and be let out in a couple of years to do it again.
Oddly enough, I have yet to hear of anyone coming out in sympathy with the Thai gunman. By now, I would have expected all the anti capital punishment campaigners to have detailed how the poor man has been stitched up. How all the evidence has been tampered with, the livestream photoshopped and in fact that the events he was wrongly executed for never even happened. It was all CGI.
orkneycadian
13-Feb-20, 11:19
If China can knock up 2 hospitals with a combined capacity of 2500 beds in a couple of weeks, surely it's not beyond us to knock up some formidable prisons in the same time?
I see that whilst China can knock up some 1000 bed pucker looking hospitals in a week or so, we revert to shipping containers
35150
But that's good, even if more primitive than it could be. But if its good enough for hospital patients, then its certainly good enough for prisoners. Get the shipping container prisons built. By the end of the month, our prison overcrowding problem will be solved, and crims will start thinking twice about committing heinous crimes. Especially if some of the containers have stickers with "Death Row" on them.
Goodfellers
13-Feb-20, 12:39
What we need is something like Alcatraz. I've put some thought into this, I think compulsary purchase of Fair Isle is in order. Build your 'containerised' prison. Install cctv to monitor the place, plus radar to monitor the seas around it. Doubt you would need any guards. Simple, cheap and could well cut re-offending if you have had to spend a winter there.
orkneycadian
13-Feb-20, 19:19
As our governments can't even stop landlubbers coming across the English Channel in toy boats, I think we'll need more than radar to deter even the most inept of a springing party.
Goodfellers
21-Feb-20, 12:06
Here is an interesting story to check on views. Clearly guilty of murder, tendancy towards violence, which will probably be with him for life, good family with stable home life. Should he be hanged?
I personally doubt he will ever contribute anything positive to society and will likely kill someone else in rage so , yes, hang him.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-51572455
orkneycadian
21-Feb-20, 20:52
Had there been the deterrant of the death penalty, then the victim would probably still be alive.
Had there been the deterrant of the death penalty, then the victim would probably still be alive.
Probably not...
I don't think many (if any) murderers are making that calculation in their head as they commit the act... They either convince themselves that they can get away with it so it doesn't matter, or something just snaps & they don't really care at the time.
orkneycadian
21-Feb-20, 22:35
Then in that case(s) they are nothing other than danger to the rest of us, and never likely to change their ways.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.