The Death Penalty - The Sun strikes again.

[Zesh Rehman]

Eye for an eye...?

leaves us all blind

 

[BigGully]

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.

That conviction took place nearly a generation ago.

I recognise that all evidence with a guilty outcome might be called irrefutable.

As I have said that there could be legal safeguards, above and beyond the current levels.

I think we seem to being hung up on procedure rather than principle.

Ian Huntley for instance seems to be undoubtedly guilty, this is the discussion, would you want him and similar abhorrent criminals given the death sentence.

We can run around legal procedure till the cows come home, but should a self confessed child murderer be given the death sentence ..... I say YES.

 

[portslade seagull]

Why would anyone want to bring the death penalty back?

I'm not saying these vile criminals don't deserve it, far from it!!

Why give them an easy way out? Make them do their life sentence, make sure their lives are hell during their stay in prison. Then when they come out after the life sentence, give them to the bereaved families and let them do what the f*** they want to them!

They have better treatment inside than most pensioners recieve outside..so hardly a punishment

 

[Buzzer]

That conviction took place nearly a generation ago.

I recognise that all evidence with a guilty outcome might be called irrefutable.

As I have said that there could be legal safeguards, above and beyond the current levels.

I think we seem to being hung up on procedure rather than principle.

Ian Huntley for instance seems to be undoubtedly guilty, this is the discussion, would you want him and similar abhorrent criminals given the death sentence.

We can run around legal procedure till the cows come home, but should a self confessed child murderer be given the death sentence ..... I say YES.

Which safeguards? I can't think of one once a jury have concluded so. You can't say that the jury must be unanimous for an abolitionist juror would merely vote not guilty to satsfy their own conscience that they haven't sent someone to the gallows. That's not very fair is it?

Also, how can you have further safeguards? If someone is found guilty then it is beyond all reasonable doubt. Is that not safeguard enough for you that someone is guilty?

As for your "self-confessions" ever heard of duress? Or perhaps simple-mindedness as with Stefan Koski?

What we are hung up on is the absurdities in your argument rather than all agreeing that child murderers should swing.

 

[BigGully]

Which safeguards? I can't think of one once a jury have concluded so. You can't say that the jury must be unanimous for an abolitionist juror would merely vote not guilty to satsfy their own conscience that they haven't sent someone to the gallows. That's not very fair is it?

Also, how can you have further safeguards? If someone is found guilty then it is beyond all reasonable doubt. Is that not safeguard enough for you that someone is guilty?

As for your "self-confessions" ever heard of duress? Or perhaps simple-mindedness as with Stefan Koski?

What we are hung up on is the absurdities in your argument rather than all agreeing that child murderers should swing.

You need to keep up ............. you can act like a two bob defense barrister if you want, I had tried to move the debate on from that.

How about the extreme criminals that have no defense, where evidence and circumstance inextricably prove their guilt.

So do you want Ian Huntley and other child killers to swing or not ??

If not what do you want done with them ??

 

[fatbadger]

Life in prisonment. That can be the only civilised answer. It's 2008 people, not 300bc. Lets not jump to knee jerk reactions resulting in murder. Noone has the right to end someone elses life.

What's civilised about locking someone up for life?

 

[Buzzer]

You need to keep up ............. you can act like a two bob defense barrister if you want, I had tried to move the debate on from that.

How about the extreme criminals that have no defense, where evidence and circumstance inextricably prove their guilt.

So do you want Ian Huntley and other child killers to swing or not ??

If not what do you want done with them ??

Oh that's alright then. Gloss over the important bit of actually finding some way of finding a purer truth than the "beyond all reasonable doubt" that we currently have.

You have said that it's reasonable to have safeguards over and above the current ones. How?

...and "two-bob barrister"? At least I try and apply rational argument rather than a woolly "we're all getting hung up on the principle - let's just all agree that child murderers should swing" type of argument that you have applied.

 

[BigGully]

What's civilised about locking someone up for life?

Whats civilised about giving a child abductor, rapist and murderer a comfy cell ??

 

[BigGully]

Oh that's alright then. Gloss over the important bit of actually finding some way of finding a purer truth than the "beyond all reasonable doubt" that we currently have.

You have said that it's reasonable to have safeguards over and above the current ones. How?

...and "two-bob barrister"? At least I try and apply rational argument rather than a woolly "we're all getting hung up on the principle - let's just all agree that child murderers should swing" type of argument that you have applied.

Safeguards in law are always evolving .......... we have safeguards now that we didnt have a generation ago.

I still cant work you out ..... are you in favour of the death sentence for child killers, but are too uneasy with our judicial system.

Or are you against the death sentence for child killers at any cost, maybe on a principle or something !!

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.

If you assume, as does most people and Ian himself, that Ian Huntley is guilty of the sex attack and murder of the two small girls in Soham, whats your view ?

I think he should of been hanged ........... over to you !!

 

[Cian]

Whats civilised about giving a child abductor, rapist and murderer a comfy cell ??

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.

 

[DJ Leon]

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.

Do you not see ANY irony in that sentence at all?

 

[Brian Fantana]

I dont really see how you can differentiate between different sorts of murder. Why is it any different killing a child as opposed to killing an elderly person? They are both potentially vulnerable. Indeed killing an adult still amounts to exactly the same crime.

Economically it might make sense to impose the death penalty to free up prison space but surely in executing someone you are simply sinking to their level. Condemning someone for taking away the life of another and then responding by doing exactly the same thing seems quite hyprocritical to me.

 

[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?

 

[footychick]

I'm not for bringing back capital punishment but I feel murderer's & rapists should be locked away with no human rights!

Same

 

[Mr Burns]

I'm all for it for certain crimes.

It has to be reserved for the most hideous of crimes, and not any old murder. I also strongly believe anyone falsafying (spell check) evidence to send someone to the gallows should also strung up as well.

But its all a non-starter as it will never happen. MPs will never get a free vote, and will have to toe the party line. So much for democracy.

 

[Pevenseagull]

I'm not going to bother with a reasoned argument supporting my view because those who oppose it would turn out the same stuff so I'll just state that State murder is abhorrent, utterly abhorrent

 

[Pevenseagull]

people shouldn't kill people

it's wrong under ANY circumstances

 

[simmo]

I think individuals see killing a child (of say under 14) as being different because children are innocent and should in no way have caused any grief or pain to the person who kills them. Also a child unlike an adult has their whole life in front of them wheras say a pensioner does not anymore.

The law in itself actually does not differentiate concerning what age the victim is. However, people think it should.

The vast majority of murders are actually where the killer knows the victim and there could be quite often mitigting circumstances, a battered wife finally snaps and kills her husband, a jealous lover, a gangland feud etc. which may make the victim seem less "innocent" than a child or even a police officer (whom is actually there to protect all of us from wrong doers).

The sentence for all murders in this country is mandatory. Life imprisonment. However, the judge also always passes a minimum sentence, which is in reality what these murderers serve.

 

[Yorkie]

I'm all for it for certain crimes.

It has to be reserved for the most hideous of crimes, and not any old murder. I also strongly believe anyone falsafying (spell check) evidence to send someone to the gallows should also strung up as well.

But its all a non-starter as it will never happen. MPs will never get a free vote, and will have to toe the party line. So much for democracy.

The vote to abolish it was a free vote.
BBC ON THIS DAY | 16 | 1969: MPs vote to abolish hanging

The decision came at the end of a seven-and-a-half hour debate which saw the Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, the Conservative leader, Edward Heath, and Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe go through the same lobby to support abolition.

Free votes in Parliament
Leader: In praise of ... free votes | Politics | The Guardian

 

[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.

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