The Death Penalty - The Sun strikes again.

[ATFC Seagull]

UK prisons are comfy ...........

Would be interested to hear where you get that from. Never been inside myself, so can't properly comment, but my Mum works in Lewes prison and says that one look inside would turn you away from ever having to go there. Obviously thats not quite true, as people re-offend, but a long way from "comfy".

 

[Race]

an 11 year old girl goes missing and is found dead in a well known paedophile's home. forensics say she was raped and tortured before death and the DNA is 100% proof of the paedophile's guilt. in police interviews he confesses and subsequently is found guity of her murder. what sentence do you give? prison or death?

 

[BigGully]

an 11 year old girl goes missing and is found dead in a well known paedophile's home. forensics say she was raped and tortured before death and the DNA is 100% proof of the paedophile's guilt. in police interviews he confesses and subsequently is found guity of her murder. what sentence do you give? prison or death?

I have been consistent from the start and tried to make the same point ...... for me I am totally at ease with the death penalty, in fact I would celebrate the fact that that animal was killed.

 

[BigGully]

Would be interested to hear where you get that from. Never been inside myself, so can't properly comment, but my Mum works in Lewes prison and says that one look inside would turn you away from ever having to go there. Obviously thats not quite true, as people re-offend, but a long way from "comfy".

Dont be silly, I certainly wouldnt want to be there, but they are comfy, no argument.

Far too comfy for any Child Killer anyhow ...

 

[BigGully]

Comfy? I don't know what UK prisons are like, but Portlaoise here (the high security, military-controlled prison) is tiny room, metal bed, 1" mattress, etc. Thats where child abductors, rapists and murderers go.

A mate of mine got a month for possession when he was 18 and was sent to Castlerea which was entirely different - but its full of drug dealers/users, car thieves and burglars, basically.

What relevance is your reference to prisons elsewhere, we are specifically talking about the UK !!!

 

[Simster]

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 would be open to considering the death penalty if there was a 100% guarantee that we always got the right man. But we don't, and we've seen far too many cases of this.

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.

Here is the flaw in your argument. NOBODY is convicted unless the evidence already *IS* irrefutable. That is what a guilty verdict is all about. That is why in some countries I believe they have a valid "unproven" verdict available, which consequently enables the defendant to be re-tried if further evidence becomes apparent.

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

You're talking bollocks there - in fact, you're having a strop. How the f*** do you arrive at that conclusion? Actually, I choose to interpret your point of view as such: that you're comfortable sending people to their deaths, despite the fact that we all know there ARE miscarriages of justice from time to time.

 

[BigGully]

I would be open to considering the death penalty if there was a 100% guarantee that we always got the right man. But we don't, and we've seen far too many cases of this.

Here is the flaw in your argument. NOBODY is convicted unless the evidence already *IS* irrefutable. That is what a guilty verdict is all about. That is why in some countries I believe they have a valid "unproven" verdict available, which consequently enables the defendant to be re-tried if further evidence becomes apparent.

You're talking bollocks there - in fact, you're having a strop. How the f*** do you arrive at that conclusion? Actually, I choose to interpret your point of view as such: that you're comfortable sending people to their deaths, despite the fact that we all know there ARE miscarriages of justice from time to time.

Nice to see that you have offered you opinion for once, that you yourself do not have a problem with the death sentence as long as he is guilty.

To that point we agree, however, there has always been different guilty verdicts that some might argue are more decisive than others. Barristers will argue the case for both the defendant and the prosecution, but the Judge can direct the jury.

Judges do and can accept a majority decision rather than a unanimous one.

That might be argued to be a less decisive guilty verdict than one which can have a unanimous one.

It is once again an absurd view to somehow taint every prosecution with historic miscarriages of justice, I have always said that there must be thorough and irrevutable evidence, most prosecutions show this and the accused themselves do not try to defend the charge, that includes criminal acts that might fall within the scale that might warrant a death penalty.

Why would you argue that Ian Huntleys and Robert Oliver's prosecutions for kidnap, torture, rape and murder of children should somehow be invalidated because there might be a death penalty rather than the life sentences they have already received ?

Thats odd ....

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Nice to see that you have offered you opinion for once, that you yourself do not have a problem with the death sentence as long as he is guilty.

To that point we agree, however, there has always been different guilty verdicts that some might argue are more decisive than others. Barristers will argue the case for both the defendant and the prosecution, but the Judge can direct the jury.

Judges do and can accept a majority decision rather than a unanimous one.

That might be argued to be a less decisive guilty verdict than one which can have a unanimous one.

It is once again an absurd view to somehow taint every prosecution with historic miscarriages of justice, I have always said that there must be thorough and irrevutable evidence, most prosecutions show this and the accused themselves do not try to defend the charge, that includes criminal acts that might fall within the scale that might warrant a death penalty.

Why would you argue that Ian Huntleys and Robert Oliver's prosecutions for kidnap, torture, rape and murder of children should somehow be invalidated because there might be a death penalty rather than the life sentences they have already received ?

Thats odd ....

You can't have 2 different 'shades' of guilty. You just can't. Anyone that falls in the second tier would have to have their convictions overturned as well.

I would imagine that the amount of people who do plead guilty (of which your example Huntley is not one) would decrease drastically if the death penalty was introduced, let alone if the death penalty was only applicable for guilty admissions. This would mean trials go on longer, and on occasion may acquit a guilty person.

Also, this could lead to an American system whereby plea bargains are negotiated to avoid the death penalty which

A) can lead to wrongful convictions, where someone innocent pleads guilty to avoid the death penalty

B) means the death penalty will rarely be used, which negates your point altogether

 

[Buzzer]

Nice to see that you have offered you opinion for once, that you yourself do not have a problem with the death sentence as long as he is guilty.

To that point we agree, however, there has always been different guilty verdicts that some might argue are more decisive than others. Barristers will argue the case for both the defendant and the prosecution, but the Judge can direct the jury.

Judges do and can accept a majority decision rather than a unanimous one.

That might be argued to be a less decisive guilty verdict than one which can have a unanimous one.

It is once again an absurd view to somehow taint every prosecution with historic miscarriages of justice, I have always said that there must be thorough and irrevutable evidence, most prosecutions show this and the accused themselves do not try to defend the charge, that includes criminal acts that might fall within the scale that might warrant a death penalty.

Why would you argue that Ian Huntleys and Robert Oliver's prosecutions for kidnap, torture, rape and murder of children should somehow be invalidated because there might be a death penalty rather than the life sentences they have already received ?

Thats odd ....

1) As stated earlier, an anti-death penalty juror could vote not guilty to avoid a unanimous decision and hence the death penalty.

2) All current successful prosecutions must be thorough and irrefutable. This higher burden of proof that you go on about simply doesn't exist. You really are struggling with this concept - aren't you.

3) We are not arguing that anyone's prosecutions be invalidated. This is mere huff and puff by you to somehow insinuate that those who oppose you would have released Huntley et al. It's simply that your arguments are flawed. Whatever my views are has no relevance to the fact that your arguments don't hold any water.

 

[Finchley Seagull]

It disturbs me how often this debate comes up. In a democracy and civil society, the idea of the death penalty is wrong. State sponsored murder is not what people should want from their government. People like Ian Huntley will never be released so they are no threat anyway.

I can understand that the victim's family may want someone to die for vengeance but do we want to base our laws on that. I am glad that there is never a real political debate about the death penalty as it shows that MPs have more sense than the tabloid press and general public.

Whatever your system you will always get wrongful convictions. Are people in favour of the death penalty happy to murder innocent people in their need for revenge?

 

[Cian]

What relevance is your reference to prisons elsewhere, we are specifically talking about the UK !!!

The relevance is that I suspect you haven't got a f***ing clue what any prisons are like inside - whereas I do, thankfully not first hand.

There are, however, people on here who have first hand experience of UK prisons...

Also, why did you feel the need to quote my post twice? Too slow to think of the second response or what?

 

[Gully]

I am for the death sentence on principle that I find their crimes so abhorrent that I am totally at ease at having them killed.

OK, in that case, would you be willing to sit on a jury in a case where the defendant was accused of pre-meditated murder in the full knowledge that a guilty verdict would result in execution. Or, for that matter, be the man at the prison whose duty it was to carry out the ultimate punishment?

I asked this of BigGully, he either missed it or was unable to respond, so I ask it of all of you who advocate the return of the death penalty.

 

[BigGully]

The relevance is that I suspect you haven't got a f***ing clue what any prisons are like inside - whereas I do, thankfully not first hand.

There are, however, people on here who have first hand experience of UK prisons...

Also, why did you feel the need to quote my post twice? Too slow to think of the second response or what?

It seems you have watched 'Midnight Express' too much, that was in Turkey, I think.

The prisons are pretty comfortable they need to be by law, prison to most of us would be unbearable, because of our loss of liberty, not because of the terrible conditions.

 

[BigGully]

I asked this of BigGully, he either missed it or was unable to respond, so I ask it of all of you who advocate the return of the death penalty.

If I was in the Jury of say Robert Oliver who kidnapped and tortured and sodimised the young lad before killing him like a dog, of course I would be more than comfortable.

Would you feel uncomfortable then at such a verdict ?

 

[Gully]

I am completely opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance, so I think you have your answer as to whether I would feel comfortable at that verdict.

 

[BigGully]

You can't have 2 different 'shades' of guilty. You just can't. Anyone that falls in the second tier would have to have their convictions overturned as well.

I would imagine that the amount of people who do plead guilty (of which your example Huntley is not one) would decrease drastically if the death penalty was introduced, let alone if the death penalty was only applicable for guilty admissions. This would mean trials go on longer, and on occasion may acquit a guilty person.

Also, this could lead to an American system whereby plea bargains are negotiated to avoid the death penalty which

A) can lead to wrongful convictions, where someone innocent pleads guilty to avoid the death penalty

B) means the death penalty will rarely be used, which negates your point altogether

But as I have outlined, you seem extremely sensitive to 'shades of guilt' when in one trial a Judge will accept a majority rather than a unanimous verdict.

I am saying in cases, and there are bucket loads of convicted criminals that have committed only the most heinous of crimes and there is no doubt of their guilt, either by the judicial or the criminals themselves, then why would you not in principle wish them to be condemned to the death penalty.

It is clear that their own cases should not be invalidated, because of some past miscarriage of justice.

We would all like the judicial system to be rigorous to the point of obsession for every case, but as I know that is not always the case but still nearly always gets a right decision of guilt or innocence, even though the severity of sentencing can be argued.

 

[Cian]

It seems you have watched 'Midnight Express' too much, that was in Turkey, I think.

The prisons are pretty comfortable they need to be by law, prison to most of us would be unbearable, because of our loss of liberty, not because of the terrible conditions.

Ahem, I've actually never seen Midnight Express.

I've been "inside" Castlerea (visiting an inmate), Mountjoy (IT contract work) and Cloverhill (ditto). None of them would come close to "pretty comfortable". And they're not the high security isolation ones - Cloverhill does have a lot of isolation ex-psychiatric cases though

 

[BigGully]

I am completely opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance, so I think you have your answer as to whether I would feel comfortable at that verdict.

Well I was forthright in my answer to you because you asked me.

I accept your stance, but I have stated why I would want the Robert Oliver's of the world to be killed, I need to ask why you would wish him not to sentenced to death ?

 

[BigGully]

Ahem, I've actually never seen Midnight Express.

I've been "inside" Castlerea (visiting an inmate), Mountjoy (IT contract work) and Cloverhill (ditto). None of them would come close to "pretty comfortable". And they're not the high security isolation ones - Cloverhill does have a lot of isolation ex-psychiatric cases though

Ok, can you explain what you found so uncomfortable about them. Not the sense of fear or loss of liberty that you and I might feel, but the actual conditions that you find so awful ?

 

[BigGully]

Ahem, I've actually never seen Midnight Express.

I've been "inside" Castlerea (visiting an inmate), Mountjoy (IT contract work) and Cloverhill (ditto). None of them would come close to "pretty comfortable". And they're not the high security isolation ones - Cloverhill does have a lot of isolation ex-psychiatric cases though

You have no real legitimacy on this if you havent seen Midnight Express, I am afraid