The Death Penalty - The Sun strikes again.

[Simster]

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.

Nevertheless, nearly always is not the same thing as always and you would happily see those innocents sent to the gallows for what you perceive to be the greater good.

At the end of the day, those revolting animals ARE locked up and we are safe from them. They are not dead (and frankly nobody is going to mourn them if they're found swinging from their cell) but they can't do anybody any harm any more. I'm happy to make that trade off, if it means that ONE more life hasn't been taken by the state in error.

 

[desprateseagull]

on a practical (cost) issue, i say hang the basstards..

but what if the wrong person got convicted- it does happen..

 

[portlock seagull]

Despite the fact that this is just NEVER going to be re-introduced because we're in the E.U and always will be tied to it, I think that juries would just not convict people of murder charges and recommend manslaughter instead in the knowledge that the former would kill someone and it would be on their conscience. I for one, if called to do my civic duty on a murder trial, just wouldn't be able to send someone to their death in the knowledge that at some future point in time, like the guildford 4 etc, new evidence comes to light or a decision is overturned. I'd be serving a life sentence myself in that respect having been dragged into the justice system without refusal. Only 1 guy's come back from the dead to my knowledge and it prompted a best selling book. The rest of us are mere mortals and there's no way I would would a part of such a society. Which is why, regardless of those arguing for the death penalty, it is never ever going to be re-introduced.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

on a practical (cost) issue, i say hang the basstards..

but what if the wrong person got convicted- it does happen..

I fail to see where this cost issue comes from. I don't know the actual figures for keeping an individual prisoner but I can't believe its a truly huge amount in the great scheme of the penal system.

Most retentionist American states execute only a handful every year (they're not all Texas), and the pro-death penalty people on this thread are asking for it to be used more sparingly than most US states do. So what cost difference is it really going to make if 1 child killer is killed every 2 years?

Plus, I don't believe there is a price on life, but thats another issue.

 

[BigGully]

Nevertheless, nearly always is not the same thing as always and you would happily see those innocents sent to the gallows for what you perceive to be the greater good.

At the end of the day, those revolting animals ARE locked up and we are safe from them. They are not dead (and frankly nobody is going to mourn them if they're found swinging from their cell) but they can't do anybody any harm any more. I'm happy to make that trade off, if it means that ONE more life hasn't been taken by the state in error.

Thats just not true .........

Why is it you find it so hard to understand that I have no trade off between innocents being sent to the gallows and the guilty being sent to the gallows.

I would only want extreme criminals to be tried for their crimes and a prospect of a death penalty if they are found guilty.

It would be an extremely vigerous procedure and the evidence would need to be irrefutable. DNA evidence has undoubtedly impacted on this procedure.

I cant think of any serial killers and serial rapists in recent history that might claim that they have been the victim of any miscarriage of justice.

The very nature of their crimes means that they are more likely to leave evidence as the urge to commit their crimes may be stronger than that of escaping capture.

I note that you 'will not mourn them if they're found swinging in their cells' , this implies that you are satisfied too that they were guilty.

 

[portlock seagull]

Thats just not true .........
.

I'm afraid it is

 

[Cian]

DNA evidence has undoubtedly impacted on this procedure.

Except theres people who've been classed as unsafely convicted on DNA evidence, too. Low copy number DNA is inherently unreliable and should not be used to convict, let alone execute.

 

[BigGully]

Except theres people who've been classed as unsafely convicted on DNA evidence, too. Low copy number DNA is inherently unreliable and should not be used to convict, let alone execute.

Well then wouldnt it be easy not to convict and execute on that evidence if it is as unreliable as you say !!

So lets cross low copy number DNA off the list .... ok

I am assuming there is a 'high copy DNA' that is pretty decent.

Not a serial rapist that wouldnt leave this type of high accuracy DNA.

 

[DJ Leon]

It would be an extremely vigerous procedure and the evidence would need to be irrefutable.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here, we already convict on 'a beyond reasonable doubt' principle. And still we have miscarriages of justice. What is this next stage of certainty you want to go to?

Anyway, I get the feeling that most people on this thread (who are against the death penalty - and it is the majority) feel the miscarriages of justice argument to be secondary to an unwillingness to allow state-sanctioned murder. I doubt you can persuade them murder is really OK in some circumstances.