Death Penalty

[Seagull1967]

The example you give, of the maltreatment of old people, is an example showing that cost does play a part. It doesn't in anyway show that cost should play a part in the debate. If anything, it suggests the opposite, as you do imply by mentioning "an ideal world".

As I said, I didn't want to explicitly state a ludicrous example in case you thought I was taking the piss, but I'm not sure you quite understood my point - you didn't answer my question about drawing the line.

If I could absolutely prove to you that it would be a massive benefit to the economy/taxpayer to just kill every elderly person once they reach a certain age, would you approve of it? Obviously you wouldn't (I'm not implying that you would); the taxpayer benefit is irrelevant. It does though prove that the following question is valid: If there is definitely one situation where the taxpayer benefit definitely isn't relevant (above) and one where it is relevant for you, where do you draw the line? At what point does taxpayer benefit become irrelevant compared to morals?

My answer is that the taking of a human life - any human life - is on the side that cost is irrelevant. Even if you support the death penalty from a moral perspective (a valid point of view even if I disagree with it), it has to be on that basis not cost. Surely?

Taking any ones life should not be taken lightly and the punishment should fit the crime and I am not advocating that cost be the should driving factor or be on an even footing with moral grounds, (person has the right to appeal), but if you look at our current criminal system with every government for at least the last 30 years has looked at cost over the crime. Sentences have got shorter or they have looked at ways of releasing people early.

With any death penalty system put in place I think the government of the day will look at ways of reducing cost irrespective of public feeling but I feel, (being cynical), that cost will play a part.

Cost should be irrelevant and should not be involved when a person has been found guilty of a crime where the death penalty is applied.

If you take the Kenneth Clark's position on certain criminals to reduce their sentences, the government might have done a U turn now but at some point, (sadly), it will be implemented.

 

[DTES]

If you take the Kenneth Clark's position on certain criminals to reduce their sentences, the government might have done a U turn now but at some point, (sadly), it will be implemented.

You're probably right.

Of course, another thing to take into account is other reasons for doing it. Particularly when it comes to crimes such as rape, there is an argument for giving the accused an incentive to plead guilty - to avoid putting the victim through the further ordeal of having to face their attacker on a daily basis throughout a lengthy trial. I can see and understand the argument... I honestly don't know which side of that bit I come down on...

 

[Seagull1967]

You're probably right.

Of course, another thing to take into account is other reasons for doing it. Particularly when it comes to crimes such as rape, there is an argument for giving the accused an incentive to plead guilty - to avoid putting the victim through the further ordeal of having to face their attacker on a daily basis throughout a lengthy trial. I can see and understand the argument... I honestly don't know which side of that bit I come down on...

I can only guess here, but being a rape victim and knowing your attacker might be out in a very short period of time might have an adverse affect, whereby the crime might not get reported at all, (what's the point!!).

It is a very difficult area and one with high emotion especially for those people who have gone through the traumatic experience.

Devaluing someone should not have a lenient sentence in my opinion and should be made accountable for their actions... What form this takes is open for debate!

 

[simmo]

Anyone remember Derek Bently?

Remember Kathleen Grundy though or Eileen Robinson....Who are they I am sure you will say well they were the victims of Britain biggest serial killer Harold Shipman whom had 215 victims in all.

The reason why you can name miscarriages of justice is because they are so rare. The reason you can't remember the names of murder victims is because they are so common place. Here is the list of the 215 victims of Shipman. I wonder if we had the death penalty in 1975 when Shipman started whether an obviously intelligent man (he was a doctor after all) would have been detered to start murdering people.

BBC NEWS | UK | Shipman's 215 victims


People never remember those who are murdered by such scum, because they have no one speaking for them. Wheras those whom have miscarriages of justice have all those opposed to the death penatly reminding us of them.

 

[Hillian1]

Remember Kathleen Grundy though or Eileen Robinson....Who are they I am sure you will say well they were the victims of Britain biggest serial killer Harold Shipman whom had 215 victims in all.

The reason why you can name miscarriages of justice is because they are so rare. The reason you can't remember the names of murder victims is because they are so common place. Here is the list of the 215 victims of Shipman. I wonder if we had the death penalty in 1975 when Shipman started whether an obviously intelligent man (he was a doctor after all) would have been detered to start murdering people.

BBC NEWS | UK | Shipman's 215 victims


People never remember those who are murdered by such scum, because they have no one speaking for them. Wheras those whom have miscarriages of justice have all those opposed to the death penatly reminding us of them.

Not sure if you've read the whole thread.

I am not against the death penalty for the most heinous crimes.

But the verdict must be without doubt, not beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[Waynflete]

I wonder if we had the death penalty in 1975 when Shipman started whether an obviously intelligent man (he was a doctor after all) would have been detered to start murdering people.

I doubt this very much. Shipman was a psychopath, psychologically compelled to commit murder. I don't think altering the penalty would have changed that at all.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Remember Kathleen Grundy though or Eileen Robinson....Who are they I am sure you will say well they were the victims of Britain biggest serial killer Harold Shipman whom had 215 victims in all.

The reason why you can name miscarriages of justice is because they are so rare. The reason you can't remember the names of murder victims is because they are so common place. Here is the list of the 215 victims of Shipman. I wonder if we had the death penalty in 1975 when Shipman started whether an obviously intelligent man (he was a doctor after all) would have been detered to start murdering people.

BBC NEWS | UK | Shipman's 215 victims


People never remember those who are murdered by such scum, because they have no one speaking for them. Wheras those whom have miscarriages of justice have all those opposed to the death penatly reminding us of them.

A very valid point but I refer you to my question in post #44 - of all the people pro the death penalty are they really saying that they are willing to take the risk that THEY are the person put to death when they are innocent ? I sure as hell don't want the state killing an innocent person in my name ( or to even have the risk of killing an innocent person ).

 

[Waynflete]

But the verdict must be without doubt, not beyond all reasonable doubt.

I have a problem with this suggestion, I'm afraid.

The point of the word 'reasonable' is to eliminate completely unreasonable explanations for someone's innocence.

For example, a defendant could argue that despite there being witnesses to his crime, there is someone somewhere in the world who looks exactly like him, and that it was this person, not the defendant, who committed the crime.

Is this possible? Just about, I suppose.
Is it a 'reasonable' explanation for why there are witnesses to the man's crime? No.

If you start insisting on 'beyond any doubt whatsoever' then you'd never get a conviction, because they could always come up with some unreasonable explanation of innocence.

 

[simmo]

I've got to go folks and I won't reply to this, but I think an invidual covicted of mulitple murders at seperate places. i.e someone like Levi Bellfied is a prime candidate for the death penalty. He has been found guilty of now 3 murders by 2 different juries. If I was the judge at yesterdays trial and the option was open to me I would hang him and let that be a warning to any new Levi Bellfeld out there. That scum deserves to die.

 

[Hillian1]

I have a problem with this suggestion, I'm afraid.

The point of the word 'reasonable' is to eliminate completely unreasonable explanations for someone's innocence.

For example, a defendant could argue that despite there being witnesses to his crime, there is someone somewhere in the world who looks exactly like him, and that it was this person, not the defendant, who committed the crime.

Is this possible? Just about, I suppose.
Is it a 'reasonable' explanation for why there are witnesses to the man's crime? No.

If you start insisting on 'beyond any doubt whatsoever' then you'd never get a conviction, because they could always come up with some unreasonable explanation of innocence.

As much as i understand your point, please read this:

Convicted of the (sexual) murder of a young girl in 1976, Stefan Kiszko spent 16 years in prison until he was released in 1992. He died of a heart attack the followng year at his mother's home aged 44; his mother, who had waged a long campaign to prove her son's innocence, died six months later.
Stefan Kiszko suffered from XYY syndrome, a condition in which the human male has an extra Y chromosome. Such males are normal except for - sometimes slight - growth abnormalities and minor behavioural abnormalities. (Another victim of a miscarriage of justice supported by Innocent also has this condition - Howard Hughes). One of Stefan Kiszko's "behavioural abnormalities" was jotting down the registration numbers of a car if he had been annoyed by the driver. This led, in part, to his wrongful conviction - he had at some point prior to the murder unwittingly jotted down the number of a car seen near the scene of the crime. It was argued that only someone at the scene could have known the number of this car... As part of his condition Stefan Kiszko would have been physically incapable of the sex crime of which he was convicted. Something which was never disclosed to his defence...

This guy would of been hanged if the death penalty was here in 76.

 

[Falkor]

See i dont believe in the death penalty in all casses of murder but i mean if someone goes out and kills multiple people and is just going to die in prison then why waste the tax payers money keeping the scum bag alive, as thats what he is, is scum.

Also paedophiles i know some people say its not there fault there ill in the head, but i think there worst that murderess personally i know that might sound extreme but i do.

 

[Waynflete]

As much as i understand your point, please read this:

Convicted of the (sexual) murder of a young girl in 1976, Stefan Kiszko spent 16 years in prison until he was released in 1992. He died of a heart attack the followng year at his mother's home aged 44; his mother, who had waged a long campaign to prove her son's innocence, died six months later.
Stefan Kiszko suffered from XYY syndrome, a condition in which the human male has an extra Y chromosome. Such males are normal except for - sometimes slight - growth abnormalities and minor behavioural abnormalities. (Another victim of a miscarriage of justice supported by Innocent also has this condition - Howard Hughes). One of Stefan Kiszko's "behavioural abnormalities" was jotting down the registration numbers of a car if he had been annoyed by the driver. This led, in part, to his wrongful conviction - he had at some point prior to the murder unwittingly jotted down the number of a car seen near the scene of the crime. It was argued that only someone at the scene could have known the number of this car... As part of his condition Stefan Kiszko would have been physically incapable of the sex crime of which he was convicted. Something which was never disclosed to his defence...

This guy would of been hanged if the death penalty was here in 76.

Sorry, I wasn't clear before... I'm against the death penalty full stop. I remember when Kiszko was released and it was extremely sad.

My point about the 'reasonable doubt' thing was simply that I don't think it's possible to demand 'beyond all possible doubt', whether you have the death penalty or not. Personally, I'm completely against the death penalty on principle anyway.

 

[DTES]

I wonder if we had the death penalty in 1975 when Shipman started whether an obviously intelligent man (he was a doctor after all) would have been detered to start murdering people.

As you say, Shipman was obviously intelligent. He knew that if he was caught he would spent the rest of his days behind bars. Any free life was over, simple. That didn't deter him; he still chose to systematically murder 215 people. Given this, I see no reason to even suspect that the death penalty would have provided any more of a deterrence.

 

[Gully]

As you say, Shipman was obviously intelligent. He knew that if he was caught he would spent the rest of his days behind bars. Any free life was over, simple. That didn't deter him; he still chose to systematically murder 215 people. Given this, I see no reason to even suspect that the death penalty would have provided any more of a deterrence.

It doesn't seem to be much of a deterrant in countries where it is still used as the ultimate punishment.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I've got to go folks and I won't reply to this, but I think an invidual covicted of mulitple murders at seperate places. i.e someone like Levi Bellfied is a prime candidate for the death penalty. He has been found guilty of now 3 murders by 2 different juries. If I was the judge at yesterdays trial and the option was open to me I would hang him and let that be a warning to any new Levi Bellfeld out there. That scum deserves to die.

Ian Huntley has repeatedly tried to commit suicide his existence has been so unbearable for this evil man in prison. Death for Huntley would be welcomed by him, the ultimate escape from whatever demons lie in that sick mind. He is on continual watch to prevent him from the 'easy way out'.

You mention Harold Shipman, bizarrely in support of your argument, given that he 'chose' to commit suicide in his cell. He welcomed death as a choice.

 

[Poyetry In Motion]

If a life sentence actually meant being imprisoned for life, then maybe the death penalty wouldn't have quite as much support as it seems to have.
Jon Venebles murdered Jamie Bulger in cold blood. He was given a life sentence, yet he only served 8 years. It's not a strong enough punishment. I'm not suggesting that JV should've been executed, but it would've been nice if he'd actually been punished more appropriately.

 

[Martinf]

That couple who tortured the 3 year old to death while babysitting him. I'd have no problem with them getting the death penalty.

I voted against but must admit to the same feelings as you Gritty. Unfortunately it was never proven in that case who actually murdered that toddler (if it's the same case I'm thinking about). I think they blamed each other. Utter scum.

 

[Gully]

If a life sentence actually meant being imprisoned for life, then maybe the death penalty wouldn't have quite as much support as it seems to have.
Jon Venebles murdered Jamie Bulger in cold blood. He was given a life sentence, yet he only served 8 years. It's not a strong enough punishment. I'm not suggesting that JV should've been executed, but it would've been nice if he'd actually been punished more appropriately.

Jon Venables was a child when Jamie Bulger was murdered, I don't think that I would want to live in a state that executed children.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I voted against but must admit to the same feelings as you Gritty. Unfortunately it was never proven in that case who actually murdered that toddler (if it's the same case I'm thinking about). I think they blamed each other. Utter scum.

Exactly. The risk of executing an innocent person just isn't worth it. As an an example, how many potential 'shaking baby' verdicts would have resulted in the death penalty, only for years later medical studies reveal that the physical evidence leading to a 'shaking baby' conviction, were unlikely to have been caused by shaking at all.

Take this list for example, could you live with their lives being taken, when later they are cleared of all charges...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/themes/crime_and_punishment/miscarriages_of_justice/default.stm

 

[N17]

Totally in favour.
Premeditated murderers, child killers, Paedos, Gooners

Just for starters