The Death Penalty - The Sun strikes again.

[Bad Ash]

Could we not get a Running Man style TV show out of it? Every Saturday, 10 'lifers' are let out into a Gladitorial arena before a live TV audience. One walks out and gets to live out his life in a high security prison, the others don't.

 

[NMH]

Medical evidence suggested Sally James and some other mothers were guilty of murdering their children. Medical evidence was later ruled unsafe and they were released.

What would have happened if these 'child killers' had been put to death?

A Brit was only recently set free in America, and he had once missed being put to death only by an hour. He was given an early release after it was re-judged, and found to have not committed the original crime.
With the numbers of incarcerated, there's a very high possibility that innocent people are put to death occasionally.
Is it worth one innocent person losing their life for?

 

[BensGrandad]

I believe that they should be kept alive and live an existence not a life as we know it. Aftera few months of the type of sentence that I suggested I am sure that they will become institutionalised and except that is the norm for the remained r of their life. They would have nothing to look forward to, and why should they, but many more days, months, years of doing the same sitting in a chair or laying on a bed waiting for the next mealtime.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Two points I'll raise:

1) The death penalty acts as a deterrent: not true, because people don't commit crimes thinking they'll get caught, they expect to get away with it, therefore if you're offering someone a choice of the electric chair or a hundred years in jail, it will make no odds to them whatsoever.

2) The majority of offences where children are sexually abused and /or murdered, are committed by people close to the child, typically family members, not a random stranger hiding in the bushes. What impact does it have on a child who's been abused by their father, let's say, to then have to deal with him being executed? Or the remaining family members if the child themself was killed?

I haven't a clue what the answer is to that one, by the way, it was just a thought that occurred to me.

 

[jevs]

Two points I'll raise:

1) The death penalty acts as a deterrent: not true, because people don't commit crimes thinking they'll get caught, they expect to get away with it, therefore if you're offering someone a choice of the electric chair or a hundred years in jail, it will make no odds to them whatsoever.

2) The majority of offences where children are sexually abused and /or murdered, are committed by people close to the child, typically family members, not a random stranger hiding in the bushes. What impact does it have on a child who's been abused by their father, let's say, to then have to deal with him being executed? Or the remaining family members if the child themself was killed?

I haven't a clue what the answer is to that one, by the way, it was just a thought that occurred to me.

Spot on on both points.

One other thing that annoys me is when people say that we shaould bring back hanging for child and police murderers.

Whilst absolutely tragic, i fail to see why a childs life or a cops life is any more important than, for example, a sister that's been murdered, my aunt Mabel that's been murdered, your brother that was murdered after a pub fight etc etc

 

[simmo]

In these debates people always compare countries like the USA and the UK and as I have stated earlier you cannot compare two countries because they have different laws, cultures etc.

However, I do think you can compare the same country before and after. South Africa (which anti's always avoid mentioning) had the death penalty up until the mid 90's and had a very low murder rate up until that point, far less than the UK. Now it has one of the highest, if not the highest murder rate in the world. Speak to any Saffer about how the abolition of the death penalty has made their society more "cultured".

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Given their appalling coverage of recent events, I'm slightly surprised to learn The Sun isn't linking this campaign to their Arsenal love-in, and calling for the death penalty for Martin Taylor.

I think they've missed a trick.

 

[BigGully]

Then your thinking is flawed on several levels

1. Who decides that the decision is correct? Is that not what the court is for in the first place?

2. Presumably there are convicted murderers who are 100% guilty and others not 100% guilty in your world. Surely, under English Law, the burden of proof is beyond all reasonable doubt - making your varying grades pointless. They are convicted ergo the decision is 100% correct (unless a miscarriage of justice but you don't care about that) and they would hang.

3. Prevention is better than cure. Your approach is to wait for a murder, solve it, hope that it's the right man and so on and so forth. It's far better for the future victims of future murderers if we stop the crime. Only by trying to understand the causes can we prevent.

An excellent example is that serial killers tend to torture animals/pets that sort of thing at a young age. We only know this by treating current serial killers. We can spot kiddies with a prediliction for this and actually do something about it.

You really are a muddled fool.

I do not accept your interpretation ......

It is quite reasonable to acknowledge that there have and there still will be miscarriages of justice where innocent men are found guilty and it is also worthwhile accepting that there are likely to be many more guilty men that have walked free also.

That is fact, nothing to do with mine or your opinion.

Therefore it is quite reasonable to demand that the jury, judge and prosecution be mindful of this when bringing any case to Court where a conviction and subsequant sentence could include the death sentence.

So to interpret this as some admission of allowing others outside of these prosecutions to not have a fair trial is misrepresentation of my views.

As for your 'prevention is better than cure' comment is equally flawed when dealing with the extremes of violent crimes.

It would be quite dangerous to somehow believe that due to some psychological profiling we can predict any likely future extreme crime and act to stop that crime by detaining those persons is unacceptable.

Lets take your people that are cruel to animals for instance. I am sure there are 1,000's of people that are cruel to animals each year.

Your basic psychological profiling would suggest that these people might go on to be serial killers, even though they are probably no more than 5 serial killers in the whole country.

So what you going to do with the 1,000's of others, that dont and never would go on to commit such crimes.

Prosecute those people for their cruelty to their animals for sure, but to think that this might be the answer to these extreme crimes is muddled.

I state again that I am at ease of allowing a guilty man of raping/sodimising and killing a child to hang.

 

[BigGully]

Spot on on both points.

One other thing that annoys me is when people say that we shaould bring back hanging for child and police murderers.

Whilst absolutely tragic, i fail to see why a childs life or a cops life is any more important than, for example, a sister that's been murdered, my aunt Mabel that's been murdered, your brother that was murdered after a pub fight etc etc

Why it would annoy you, baffles me.

I agree that those lives are equally precious but not to somehow feel the anger at crimes against children maybe beyond those against adults suggests that you my friend have not yet had children.

 

[Simster]

I do not accept your interpretation ......

It is quite reasonable to acknowledge that there have and there still will be miscarriages of justice where innocent men are found guilty and it is also worthwhile accepting that there are likely to be many more guilty men that have walked free also.

That is fact, nothing to do with mine or your opinion.

Therefore it is quite reasonable to demand that the jury, judge and prosecution be mindful of this when bringing any case to Court where a conviction and subsequant sentence could include the death sentence.

So to interpret this as some admission of allowing others outside of these prosecutions to not have a fair trial is misrepresentation of my views.

No it isn't. You are saying that judge and jury must be mindful of the death penalty sentence before conviction. Fine - but the same should apply to a 30 year jail term. You don't send someone to prison without being sure they are 100% guilty!

You can dress it up in as much fluffy, woolly language as you like, but the fact remains that you are suggesting that sentences can be dished out based on the degree of guilt. This is fundamentally flawed because you are either guilty or not guilty.

 

[Cian]

As last time this was mentioned - good luck trying, its banned across the EU and we were threatened with expulsion for still having (and issuing and autocommuting to life with a 40 year minimum tarriff, no parole, in a military prison) it on the statue books a few years ago...

 

[BigGully]

No it isn't. You are saying that judge and jury must be mindful of the death penalty sentence before conviction. Fine - but the same should apply to a 30 year jail term. You don't send someone to prison without being sure they are 100% guilty!

You can dress it up in as much fluffy, woolly language as you like, but the fact remains that you are suggesting that sentences can be dished out based on the degree of guilt. This is fundamentally flawed because you are either guilty or not guilty.

Why you choose to interpret that because I support the death sentence as long as the conviction is sound, somehow means that I wish others outside of these prosecutions to not also be secure is bizaare in the extreme.

Why would you think I would not want the same vigilance for a 30 year or 30 day sentence ?

 

[jevs]

Why it would annoy you, baffles me.

I agree that those lives are equally precious but not to somehow feel the anger at crimes against children maybe beyond those against adults suggests that you my friend have not yet had children.

And you my friend are very very wrong...i have a 9 year old daughter who i absolutely adore.

I just find it annoying that some people think that one life is more important than another.

We all know how tragic it is when a child is murdered....i've shed plenty a tear for some of the poor sods we read about...and given my daughter an extra hug when she gets home from school too. But it still doesn't mean that a childs life or a cops life is any more important than....those 5 murdered prostitutes for example or the two girls murdered by that animal who was sentanced yesterday

Just my opinion really.

 

[Gully]

Can everyone on here honestly say that they have 100% faith in the British legal system to correctly convict 100% of the time, whilst I believe it to be amongst the fairest in the World there is no way that I am that confident in it. Given that there is a risk of incorrectly executing someone who is innocent then I cannot see how any society that considers itself civilised could ever countenance its re-introduction.

Besides, how on earth would you get around health and safety regs with a gallows...can't hang him with that mate, he might get rope burns on his neck!

 

[BigGully]

And you my friend are very very wrong...i have a 9 year old daughter who i absolutely adore.

I just find it annoying that some people think that one life is more important than another.

We all know how tragic it is when a child is murdered....i've shed plenty a tear for some of the poor sods we read about...and given my daughter an extra hug when she gets home from school too. But it still doesn't mean that a childs life or a cops life is any more important than....those 5 murdered prostitutes for example or the two girls murdered by that animal who was sentanced yesterday

Just my opinion really.

I am thinking on my feet here ........

But I actually do think that a child's life might be more precious than those prostitutes life .......

Not sure why just yet, just instinct ....... give me a while to work out why and put up a defense !!!!

 

[Simster]

Why you choose to interpret that because I support the death sentence as long as the conviction is sound, somehow means that I wish others outside of these prosecutions to not also be secure is bizaare in the extreme.

Why would you think I would not want the same vigilance for a 30 year or 30 day sentence ?

*sigh* It's really very simple, but I'll explain it again:

EVERY conviction should be sound, but that isn't always the case. Given that fact, you seem to be suggesting that only the 100% CERTAIN guilty convictions should lead to the death penalty. What I am saying is that every guilty conviction is supposed to be 100% certain, which isn't actually the case. So it follows that you seem to be happy to send a percentage of innocent people to the gallows. My point is that at least those people would be able to fight a wrongful conviction from prison.

 

[BigGully]

*sigh* It's really very simple, but I'll explain it again:

EVERY conviction should be sound, but that isn't always the case. Given that fact, you seem to be suggesting that only the 100% CERTAIN guilty convictions should lead to the death penalty. What I am saying is that every guilty conviction is supposed to be 100% certain, which isn't actually the case. So it follows that you seem to be happy to send a percentage of innocent people to the gallows. My point is that at least those people would be able to fight a wrongful conviction from prison.

Really no need to sigh ....... and it is simple and I will explain to you again ....

It is reasonable for me to say if there is a guilty conviction for a heinous crime such as Child rape/murder then I would support the death penalty.

I am not sure whether you would support the death penalty in principle but have reservations due to the very small number of miscarriages of justice or that you do not support the death penalty at all, irrespective of anyone elses view.

I accept that with the magnitude of this punishment, it is likely that the Judge, Jury and prosecution must be mindful of this.

The evidence must be irrefutable.

You choose to interpret that as somehow undermining any other lesser prosecution.

If a criminal that has committed a quite heinous crime I am at ease of them being put to death.

Quite simple really.

 

[Gully]

Evidence being irrefutable, in the case of the Birmingham six and Guildford four that might have been thought correct at the time of conviction...it was later proven that the Police had fiddled with the evidence to secure a conviction, the court could only convict on the evidence presented, if that had been falsified or doctored then there was no way the convictions could stand. The men were quite rightly released from prison as their convictions could not stand, regardless of whether they were guilty or not, if we still had capital punishment then try telling the families that a Royal Pardon is better than being re-united with your son/brother/husband/father...I don't think I could.

 

[Robbie G]

Eye for an eye...?

 

[Zesh Rehman]

It WONT ever come back