Death Sentence.

[Slacker]

It's nowhere near that simple -there's an almost endless appeals process.

Not that that is the prime consideration; deliberately, pre-meditatedly, killing a defenseless person - irrespective of what that person has done - is murder. That's a reality that advocates of capital punishment can't face up to.

The abolition of the death penalty was one of the best things to happen in the UK in the last 60 years, and it's not coming back.

I can face up to it!How many people who have committed seriously heinous crimes, which they were executed for,instead of given lenient sentences and early parole,have gone on to reoffend?

[PHILINFRANCE]

I can face up to it!How many people who have committed seriously heinous crimes, which they were executed for,instead of given lenient sentences and early parole,have gone on to reoffend?

 

A puerile response, and I am sure you can answer your own question.

 

But, please tell me.

 

How many people who have been (wrongly) convicted and executed for heinous crimes have been brought back to life once it was discovered they had been wrongly convicted - and executed?

[Slacker]

Puerile?I assure you Phil,I am not trying to be flippant about something so serious.There have indeed been cases of people being executed then exonerated.Most of these cases are a long time ago.I would hope that with advances in forensic science that this would not happen in future.There are undeniably some cases were people are guilty beyond doubt.How about constant reoffenders?If these people are guilty beyond doubt(DNA/Cctv)do you still feel execution is not an option?

[And Its Smith]

Puerile?I assure you Phil,I am not trying to be flippant about something so serious.There have indeed been cases of people being executed then exonerated.Most of these cases are a long time ago.I would hope that with advances in forensic science that this would not happen in future.There are undeniably some cases were people are guilty beyond doubt.How about constant reoffenders?If these people are guilty beyond doubt(DNA/Cctv)do you still feel execution is not an option?

You hope it won't happen in future? I hope you are crossing your fingers just to make doubly sure.

I think they should bring back the death penalty as long as, when sentencing, the judge and jury promise to cross their fingers (and preferably toes), hold a rabbits foot and wish really hard (and I mean really hard) that they haven't made a mistake in instructing the death of an innocent man thus ruining the lives of many people.

[Slacker]

How many peoples lives have been ruined by serial offenders who have not been dealt with adequately by the courts?I would guess it would be substantially more.I do not want a "lighthearted" approach to execution,however some people are 100% proven to be guilty.I understand the point you make about miscarriages of justice,but sometimes there is NO doubt whatsoever.

[PHILINFRANCE]

How many peoples lives have been ruined by serial offenders who have not been dealt with adequately by the courts?I would guess it would be substantially more.I do not want a "lighthearted" approach to execution,however some people are 100% proven to be guilty.I understand the point you make about miscarriages of justice,but sometimes there is NO doubt whatsoever.

 

I understand and can accept totally that you are not trying to be flippant nor taking a lighthearted approach to execution.

 

I can also accept that that repeat offenders are just that, and it follows that, had they been executed, they would not have been able to re-offend. 

 

But, in whose name and by what method would you propose to execute (murder?) somebody, and how, if by chance this person was executed in error, i.e. for a crime he or she did not commit, would you explain/justify this to his/her family? 

[Red-Robbo]

Puerile?I assure you Phil,I am not trying to be flippant about something so serious.There have indeed been cases of people being executed then exonerated.Most of these cases are a long time ago.I would hope that with advances in forensic science that this would not happen in future.There are undeniably some cases were people are guilty beyond doubt.How about constant reoffenders?If these people are guilty beyond doubt(DNA/Cctv)do you still feel execution is not an option?

They are a long time ago, because the death sentence was abolished in 1965. I can think without any pause of at least 20 Britons who would've been wrongly executed since then had we had the death penalty. DNA evidence would've been irrelevant in some of the cases - they were based on flawed forensics / police fitting up the wrong men.

In the US there is an organisation of about 500 men who have either been sentenced to death and then been exonerated before execution, or have received murder convictions in states without the death sentence and been proved innocent since.

The death sentence is not a deterrent in any way - as criminals always think they won't be caught or are too deranged to consider the consequences of their crime - and as retribution it would only work if we had a 100% efficient criminal justice system, which we are light-years away from.

As EVERY conviction is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt, you couldn't include a different category of guilty where you say this bloke is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and will get life, but this person is even beyond that and will be hanged!

[Slacker]

I did try to emphasize that there be proof of guilt.I am wary of using certain examples as I don't want to steer this thread in a direction that many seem to go.However,to cite one obvious example,how about the killers of Lee Rigby.What would you deem an appropriate punishment/solution to that incident?

[PHILINFRANCE]

They are a long time ago, because the death sentence was abolished in 1965. I can think without any pause of at least 20 Britons who would've been wrongly executed since then had we had the death penalty. DNA evidence would've been irrelevant in some of the cases - they were based on flawed forensics / police fitting up the wrong men.

In the US there is an organisation of about 500 men who have either been sentenced to death and then been exonerated before execution, or have received murder convictions in states without the death sentence and been proved innocent since.

The death sentence is not a deterrent in any way - as criminals always think they won't be caught or are too deranged to consider the consequences of their crime - and as retribution it would only work if we had a 100% efficient criminal justice system, which we are light-years away from.

As EVERY conviction is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt, you couldn't include a different category of guilty where you say this bloke is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and will get life, but this person is even beyond that and will be hanged!

 

I agree that the death sentence is not a deterrent, and, of course, I do not need to convince you that neither is it safe.

 

Moral issues aside, I can accept (albeit with some reservations) that there may be some justification where there is absolutely no doubt, but then how does one distinguish between a 'normal, run of the mill' murder and a horrendous/heinous one?  

 

Would it be justified/possible to apply the death sentence for, say, the murder of a Policeman/woman whilst on duty; the sexually motivated murder of a child or even a woman during/following her rape; or in the course of mugging an OAP (male or female)? 

 

I would suggest that any 'normal' person would agree that the perpetrator of such a crime deserves the harshest of penalties, and rightly so: but who, really, and please dismiss those who post regularly saying 'just give me 10 minutes alone with him' etc., would like to be the one to pull the trigger.

 

Try to imagine looking him/her in the eyes. Are you really guilty? Do you really deserve this?  

 

In so far as it concerns wrongful convictions, and I am not trying to trivialise the subject, picture Chris Tarrant and 'Who wants to be a millionaire?'.

 

I am not sure if this programme is still broadcast in the UK, but there used to be a 'joker' where the audience was able to assist. The instructions were quite and explicitly clear: only answer if you are sure of the answer.

 

I watch the German equivalent frequently, and I can assure you that, without fail, more than 10% of responses are wrong - and this is in response to a fact, not a judgement as to whether he/she did it.

 

Just imagine if the same percentage applied to the death penalty sentence. 

[Slacker]

Maybe someone with an ex-forces background would be suitable to carry out the execution?Murder by definition is deliberate as opposed to manslaughter.I have to concede that some murders involve mitigating circumstances.It is a grey area in some cases but not I feel,in others.

[Red-Robbo]

I agree that the death sentence is not a deterrent, and, of course, I do not need to convince you that neither is it safe.

Moral issues aside, I can accept (albeit with some reservations) that there may be some justification where there is absolutely no doubt, but then how does one distinguish between a 'normal, run of the mill' murder and a horrendous/heinous one?

Would it be justified/possible to apply the death sentence for, say, the murder of a Policeman/woman whilst on duty; the sexually motivated murder of a child or even a woman during/following her rape; or in the course of mugging an OAP (male or female)?

I would suggest that any 'normal' person would agree that the perpetrator of such a crime deserves the harshest of penalties, and rightly so: but who, really, and please dismiss those who post regularly saying 'just give me 10 minutes alone with him' etc., would like to be the one to pull the trigger.

Try to imagine looking him/her in the eyes. Are you really guilty? Do you really deserve this?

In so far as it concerns wrongful convictions, and I am not trying to trivialise the subject, picture Chris Tarrant and 'Who wants to be a millionaire?'.

I am not sure if this programme is still broadcast in the UK, but there used to be a 'joker' where the audience was able to assist. The instructions were quite and explicitly clear: only answer if you are sure of the answer.

I watch the German equivalent frequently, and I can assure you that, without fail, more than 10% of responses are wrong - and this is in response to a fact, not a judgement as to whether he/she did it.

Just imagine if the same percentage applied to the death penalty sentence.

Quite

I have no problem with the idea of Ian Huntley, Peter Sutcliffe etc not being alive.

However the margin of error in heinous cases is just as wide as it is in an "ordinary" murder.

The only way I could see capital punishment working would be if the jurors, judge, prosecutors and police would be liable to a manslaughter charge should they accidentally send an innocent person to their death, and if someone has deliberately mislead to get the conviction - as in the Cardiff 4 case - then it would be murder.

Trouble is, if you considered that sort of consequenc, no one would ever be convicted.

[WessexPest]

I can face up to it!How many people who have committed seriously heinous crimes, which they were executed for,instead of given lenient sentences and early parole,have gone on to reoffend?

 

It's not a straight choice between being in favour of capital punishment and saying "let the dangerous villains out - I don't care what harm they do." In reality, they provide assessments, as numerous other qualified people do, and then careful decisions are made. Do they get it wrong sometimes? Yes. We tend not to hear about all the times they get it right.

 

It is better to let a guilty man go free than to kill an innocent man. It's not good, desirable or acceptable to let a guilty man go free. But it is the lesser - by far - of the two evils. Trying to do the right thing and getting it wrong is always preferable to trying to do the wrong thing and getting it even more wrong.

 

Puerile?I assure you Phil,I am not trying to be flippant about something so serious.There have indeed been cases of people being executed then exonerated.Most of these cases are a long time ago.I would hope that with advances in forensic science that this would not happen in future.There are undeniably some cases were people are guilty beyond doubt.How about constant reoffenders?If these people are guilty beyond doubt(DNA/Cctv)do you still feel execution is not an option?

 

Slacker, my belief is that it's wrong to kill people. That's all there is to it really. Whether someone is 99,999% guilty or 110% guilty doesn't matter a stuff. Neither does the crime they've committed, no matter how abhorrent. I don't want people being killed. I have problems, frankly, with anyone who disagrees with this.

 

As EVERY conviction is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt, you couldn't include a different category of guilty where you say this bloke is guilty beyond reasonable doubt and will get life, but this person is even beyond that and will be hanged!

 

Indeed. "Fred West, this court finds you super-guilty of murder. You will face the death penalty. Rose West, you're only guilty of murder and will go to jail."

 

I did try to emphasize that there be proof of guilt.I am wary of using certain examples as I don't want to steer this thread in a direction that many seem to go.However,to cite one obvious example,how about the killers of Lee Rigby.What would you deem an appropriate punishment/solution to that incident?

 

There very worst criminals should be locked up for good, and that probably includes them.

 

Maybe someone with an ex-forces background would be suitable to carry out the execution?Murder by definition is deliberate as opposed to manslaughter.I have to concede that some murders involve mitigating circumstances.It is a grey area in some cases but not I feel,in others.

 

Yes, murder is deliberate. And that includes judicial murder.

 

Look, it's a natural human reaction to want to react violently to appalling violence - be it this case, James Bulger's murder, Lee Rigby's murder, etc. etc. But it's the mark of a civilised society that we've moved beyond mob justice (Compare Utah, and their solution to running out of the lethal injection drug - bringing back the firing squad. It's like the Wild West all over again). We built structres and hand over power to people (elected or chosen) to deal with lawbreakers soberly on our (society's) behalf. So many people don't seem to understand this.  

[Slacker]

How much will it cost to keep Lee Rigby's killers in prison for life?These men are undeniably guilty.Do you think it is possible to rehabilitate them?How many "Oskar" style operations,or cancer sufferers who are victims of "postcode lotteries" could be funded with that money?

[WessexPest]

How much will it cost to keep Lee Rigby's killers in prison for life?These men are undeniably guilty.Do you think it is possible to rehabilitate them?How many "Oskar" style operations,or cancer sufferers who are victims of "postcode lotteries" could be funded with that money?

 

No, it's probably not possible to rehabilitate that pair. Even if it was, the fact that they killed a British soldier and apparently had a good go at removing his head means they should still stay in prison for a very, very long time. Probably until their dying days.

 

As I said to Dolly Marie, it's not as straightforward as sentence being handed down and the guilty party being taken swiftly outside the courtroom and offed. The average death row prisoner in the U.S. waits 15 years between sentencing and execution. Many die of natural causes first. There is an endless appeals process which is hugely expensive.

 

Even if it could be shown that execution is more cost-effective than life imprisonment, though, I wouldn't shift my position one inch. I don't want to live in a culture where life is - literally - cheap.

[Slacker]

Unfortunately it all to often seems to be the victims lives which are treated cheaply,while the perpetrators human rights are handled with the utmost reverence.The appeals procedures,though important in some instances are shockingly abused by people,I.e. lawyers in a position to gain much from dragging out some fairly open and shut cases.That said I appreciate our legal system needs to operate an appeals process where there is reasonable doubt.

[WessexPest]

I'm not sure why you're labouring the point about doubt over the conviction. Doesn't matter a jot. Even if everyone in the world knew for absolute certain that criminal X had committed the crimes for which he/she was convicted and that crime was the most heinous one imaginable, killing that criminal as a punishment is still not on. No exceptions.

 

You can't show that killing people is wrong by killing people. Full stop. 

[Slacker]

We shall have to agree to disagree.I understand that you see it from an ethical perspective,whereas I see it from the perspective of the victims and potential future victims.

[WessexPest]

How does killing their murderer help the victims? 

 

As for potential future victims, there won't be any for the worst offenders - Brady, Huntley, Rose West etc. will never have the opportunity to re-enter society and reoffend. They will live out the rest of their natural lives in prison.

 

Then there's cases like Jon Venables. The decision to release him was taken in line with legal precedent (the Mary Bell case) and one they've followed through very carefully.

 

There was a chance that he might re-offend so he was put on licence and monitored. These systems have evidently worked because he re-offended and was promptly yanked in. He's obviously being closely watched, and will be for the rest of his life. I think this demonstrates that the system is working.

[Slacker]

It may give the victims family a sense of closure.I don't know.The examples you quote are I imagine a minority in that most murderers do not serve whole life terms.It would be interesting to know how many innocent people have been wrongly executed compared to how many people have been murdered by reoffenders who have commuted more crimes after soft sentencing/early release.I am not trying to give the impression that I believe that a certain amount of "collateral damage"is acceptable as that is not the case.I am certainly not in favour of wholesale execution.

[Barrs Court Red]

I'm in favour of the death penalty.  Extreme cases, such as the Rigby killers, that outrage public opinion. The threshold is clear evidence, and this case clearly meets that.

[Red-Robbo]

Death was what the Rigby killers wanted.

Far better to give them what they DON'T want - rotting away all their miserable lives in prison; forever watching their backs for attacks and looking on impotently while their "cause" is rolled back and defeated.

One of them has reportedly reverted back to Christianity in prison. The propaganda value of that alone is worth more than a couple of "martyrs" corpses.

[Slacker]

To be honest Robbo,I am not really interested in what they wanted. Also it seems a little convenient that someone can do what they did in the name of one religion then convert to another soon after.I would guess that the cost of their trial,any appeal's and subsequent decades of incarceration will cost in the tens of millions and that money could be spent on much worthier things.

[One Team In Keynsham]

I'm in favour of the death penalty.  Extreme cases, such as the Rigby killers, that outrage public opinion. The threshold is clear evidence, and this case clearly meets that.

By definition all criminal convictions are cases where the crown has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (though I see that there is some reference nowadays to the judge directing the jury that they "must be sure that the defendant is guilty"), presumably using clear evidence:  history shows that even this does not prevent miscarriage of justices, and for that I remain opposed to the return of capital punishment.  

 

In addition, in my opinion, of all the factors that should be considered when passing judgement, the level of public outrage is one to certainly discount:  the criminal justice system should be above being swayed by the baying angry hordes.

[Aizoon]

To be honest Robbo,I am not really interested in what they wanted. Also it seems a little convenient that someone can do what they did in the name of one religion then convert to another soon after.I would guess that the cost of their trial,any appeal's and subsequent decades of incarceration will cost in the tens of millions and that money could be spent on much worthier things.

 

It's not about what they want - it's about what their followers want. It was the shooting of the Easter rebels that kicked off the final push for Irish independence. If one of them did re-convert to Christianity, that would be a major down for their followers.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Death was what the Rigby killers wanted.

Far better to give them what they DON'T want - rotting away all their miserable lives in prison; forever watching their backs for attacks and looking on impotently while their "cause" is rolled back and defeated.

One of them has reportedly reverted back to Christianity in prison. The propaganda value of that alone is worth more than a couple of "martyrs" corpses.

 

Two things, firstly the French secretly buried the Charlie Hebdo and deli killers, to me that is job done twice. Secondly Blair converted to catholicism and reportedly now on the brink of divorce, if true that worked well.

 

I converted to Taoism after reading the tao of Pooh & the the of piglet by Benjamin Hoff.

[PHILINFRANCE]

By definition all criminal convictions are cases where the crown has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (though I see that there is some reference nowadays to the judge directing the jury that they "must be sure that the defendant is guilty"), presumably using clear evidence:  history shows that even this does not prevent miscarriage of justices, and for that I remain opposed to the return of capital punishment.  

 

In addition, in my opinion, of all the factors that should be considered when passing judgement, the level of public outrage is one to certainly discount:  the criminal justice system should be above being swayed by the baying angry hordes.

 

Not 100% sure, but probably - so I am going to kill you.

[Red-Robbo]

Two things, firstly the French secretly buried the Charlie Hebdo and deli killers, to me that is job done twice. Secondly Blair converted to catholicism and reportedly now on the brink of divorce, if true that worked well.

I converted to Taoism after reading the tao of Pooh & the the of piglet by Benjamin Hoff.

I can't quite see the relevance of any of that, Es.

They sought martyrdom - which would give them street cred with like-minded ********* and get battalions of suicide bombers named after them, and streets in Raqqa etc - and probably inspire some other doss cants to follow their example.

Except, they aren't martyrs. They failed. They are two spare *****s sat in a cell for decades. One of whom has even disowned his actions.

No inspiration for other wanna-get-to-paradise-by-killing-a-few-whiteys maniacs. Just a big day-by-day embarrassment to them.

[Aizoon]

Two things, firstly the French secretly buried the Charlie Hebdo and deli killers, to me that is job done twice. Secondly Blair converted to catholicism and reportedly now on the brink of divorce, if true that worked well.

I converted to Taoism after reading the tao of Pooh & the the of piglet by Benjamin Hoff.

Wait until you read the Homilies of Horace...

[WessexPest]

I'm in favour of the death penalty.  Extreme cases, such as the Rigby killers, that outrage public opinion. The threshold is clear evidence, and this case clearly meets that.

 

The threshold for any conviction is clear evidence. Any reasonable doubt and the case is thrown out.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's irrelevant if the evidence against them is incontrovertible. It's wrong to kill people. Always.

 

As a society we've evolved beyond the death penalty. Take a look at those countries who still have capital punishment (The U.S. is in uneasy company). I don't want my country to be part of that list, do you?

[One Team In Keynsham]

Not 100% sure, but probably - so I am going to kill you.

Should I be worried?