Death Penalty

[drew]

Drew, there are plenty of compelling reasons why we should get out of the EU and if introducing the death penalty, gets us to that point I will build the gallows myself. Frankly I couldn't care less about the Greek suicide rate, why should I? I raised it soley as a delicious statistical morsel relating to the current Euro crisis. If your arguement is that we should stay committed to the Euro project in order to supress the Greek suicide rate it is you that has a weak argument.

You raised the question of greek suicide rate. I merely commented on it suggesting that your argument doesn't wash because you don't know what the alternative would be. Having said that, I wouldn't suggest using the tool of capital punishment as an excuse to get out of an economical agreement but it appears that it does suit you. Perhaps that is more an indictment of the sort of person you are rather than a contribution to the current debate.

I'm not in favour of the death penalty but it's you that seems to have the weak arguments. CF has not said advocated the death penalty as a cost-cutting exercise. What he's said is something completely different. Life and death decisions based on finances are made every day in the NHS. It's a cold fact of life (and death) that money is finite whereas needs appear to be infinite. To boil it down to the words "cost-cutting" is simplistic, very weak and highly emotive. Likewise with your comments about the EU.

Nope. This argument is absolute nonsense I'm afraid. Criminal guilt is decided on the case being beyond all reasonable doubt and to all intents and purposes is 100%. If you are referring to DNA tests then rarely are they anything less than 99.99% accurate in forensic tests.

You are being completely disengenuous the NHS by comparing the decisions they make to those of a court. The NHS do not decide that people will die just because of finance. There are a host of factors that are taken into consideration, mainly consisting of the individuals current condition and prognosis. There may be areas were NICE have deemed it not economical to provide a certain drug but this normally because of the minimal benefits. For example where a cancer drug can only extend life for a matter of weeks but can not prevent the inevitable. Another example would be were you switch of life support where patients are brain dead. The machines will keep their bodies going ad infinitem but there is a cost to that.

There's a lot this Govt (and previous Govts) do that I am not happy about, however I understand that there need to be a rule of law. As for miscarriages the door swings both ways and it has been the case that the guilty have been found innocent. That's life. How can you say 'that's life' when the effect of a miscarriage of justice in respect of capital punishment is an innocent person is dead. Could be you, could be your children but I am sure you will just shrug your shoulders and take whatever is coming because 'that's life'.

So your contention here is more about the criminal justice system, and whether it can safely find the accused guilty or not. I dont doubt that it is flawless, but it is what we have got. You are innocent till proven guilty, not guilty till proven innocent. If you are guilty then you take the penalty whatever that is............Death or Bongo. I disagree, you are guilty if you carried out the act and innocent if you didn't. The jury need to decide what they believe the truth is and they don't always get it right.

Anyway I digress, as my point was for the mad and bad who will never be released, death is cheaper for the public purse than keeping them alive at 41k p.a. and counting. Morality is all very well when you can afford it, but like it or not cuts need to be made...........this is an easy one.

The same argument can be run for state funded euthansia for the suicidal and terminally ill. This one is double bubble for the tax payer as not only do we break the swiss monopoly (charging 10k a pop and increase employment) we get an upside on reducing pensions and NHS costs.

Its win win, but only if we can open our minds.

I sense from your arguments that you are playing devils advocate as to suggest that the collateral damage of executing the odd innocent person is a small price to pay. Nobody in their right mind would argue that is acceptable.

You miss the point I am trying to make...I look at these comments and i see people who have never had contact with our prison population. Some people are just plain bad and the prision system DOES NOT rehabilitate any inmates despite what the media tells you. Why people are so perverse in the context of our social norms I know not but they are. No remorse, no acceptance of the crime, no perception of the damage and harm, no believe that their behaviour needs amendment.; these people are the ones who are detained at her majesty's pleasure of for an undefined length. There are sentenced in the belief that they will never be released however, the Human Rights lobby in future years (not even born where the crimes were committed) always campaign for release under licence of these people and there is a risk these maybe unleased upon the wider society.

If you read my earlier posts you will see that I do not support the campaign 1x murder = death sentence but serial killers, habitual violent rapists and kidder fiddlers of varying degrees should be considered for this. (and I did say CPFC for parking offences upwards).

If people believe that all offenders can become contirbuting citizens, they are WRONG
If people believe that all the criminals who are responsible for the most heinous crimes will reform, they are WRONG
If people believe that criminals who should spend the rest of their lives inside will defininately will, they are WRONG

Where has anyone said that all prisoners can be rehabilitated or become responsible citizens. You seem to suggest that one size fits all.

Some people should be sentenced to death to protect society (not as a deterant, not as a cost saving exercise but as protction of society)
If they are locked up for life, literally, then society is surely protected!

In the last 50 years (including before DNA evidence was available) less than .001% of serial killer convictions were deemed to be unsafe not wrong.

It would be a wake up call if as a civic duty everyone served one week as a guard in Belmarsh, whitemoor, wakefield of Frankland and look at some of these animals in the eye.

What is the percentage relating to murder convictions rather than just serial killers?

 

[BensGrandad]

Why do America use a sterile needle when administering a lethal injection, wouldnt any used or other needle do as the end result is the same.

 

[Bisto]

What is the percentage relating to murder convictions rather than just serial killers?[/QUOTE]

That is not relevant as murders are not in my lists for candidates

 

[terry1]

I'm all for the death penalty if people deserve it. The problem is finding conclusive proof of the crime. There are also circumstances, for example the killers of poor James Bulger. People including myself were calling for there heads. Yet they were on 10years old themselves. There has to be guidelines as to who and why a life should be taken. If there is conclusive proof that someone has murdered for no apparent reason then they should get the death penalty dependant on age. Yet this would still open a huge can of worms. Only last week a burglar was stabbed to death during a robbery. Should this result in the death penalty? I dont think so. Its a very difficult debate to say yes or no to. But i do believe truely evil people like Levi Bellfield should be made to spend their life hopefully getting battered in prison rather than the easy way out of death. In my view all convicted peodophile's should be killed. Line them all up and face the firing squad. I would be the first volunteer to take first shot. Some people may think my views are a bit extreme but I believe in what i say

 

[terry1]

...

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'm all for the death penalty if people deserve it.

A comedy moment.

 

[Twizzle]

There are people in our world I would prefer were not, and that are too violent or dispassionate to want around.
However, I don't see how it's man's right to remove them quietly from life.

Put them in the front lines, or make Tasmania a penal colony again.

 

[Twizzle]

Come to think about it - we have a police force in Britain who will give the judgment and penalty and act as executioners.
Raul Moat was (probably) the last execution they carried out so far, and recorded for the satisfaction of all their fellow members.
Juan Menendes, the innocent Brazilian lad was another of their executions.

 

[simmo]

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.

And the Yorkshire Ripper is now 19stone is a culinary expert whom cooks steak in his Broadmoor Cell and gets to shake Frank Bruno's hands at parties. You miss the point about Shipman, in 1975 before he started his vile campaign if he knew he might die doing what he did, would he have started? None of us can tell, because we do not know Shipman's mind at the time. But we know that because it wasn't there it didn't stop him. My argument is that the death penalty might have been a deterent to him a seemingly intelligent man (and loads and loads others) it is also no use arguing about USA blah, blah, they have completely different laws (especially in respect of guns which massively effect murder rates).

Steven Wright the Suffolk Strangler (5 victims) was found with a hair of the head of one of his victims in his car footwell and a miniscule amount of blood of another of his victims on his flourescent jacket. Dennis Neilsen (10+ victims) was caught because the flesh of his victims were blocking up his communial drains.

Gulity enough for you? Well that will do for me.

You need to realise that murders happen and that there are murderers and that in some cases there is absolutely not a shadow of doubt whom the perpertrators are. They deserve to die as a punishment for what they have done and as a warning to others whom may be thinking of going down this path. You can talk about all the miscarriages of justice you want, I know these happen, but not all those convicted of murder need to be given the death penalty, it should be very rare and in my opinion only the most vile serial killers (with such overwhelming evidence as in Wright and Nielsen) should be eligible.

 

[Bold Seagull]

You need to realise that murders happen and that there are murderers and that in some cases there is absolutely not a shadow of doubt whom the perpertrators are. They deserve to die as a warning to others whom may be thinking of going down this path. You can talk about all the miscarriages of justice you want, I know these happen, but not all those convicted of murder need to be given the death penalty, it should be very rare and in my opinion only the most vile serial killers (with such overwhelming evidence as in Wright and Nielsen) should be eligible.

I need to realise murders happen!? do you actually mean the entire judiciary system in this country that doesn't agree with you, and hasn't done formally since 1965 as well!?

You have your opinion, and your own arguments (however patronising in their delivery), but don't delude yourself into thinking you are in anything but a minority in this country, as countless polls over the years have proven.

 

[simmo]

I need to realise murders happen!? do you actually mean the entire judiciary system in this country that doesn't agree with you, and hasn't done formally since 1965 as well!?

You have your opinion, and your own arguments (however patronising in their delivery), but don't delude yourself into thinking you are in anything but a minority in this country, as countless polls over the years have proven.

So you don't choose to argue against them, you decide to call them patronising.

I am not even interested in whether the public is for or against it and what opinio polls say. What has that got to do with my opinion.

It is pretty easy to read press coverage of cases to see where there is so much evidence against someone there is not a shadow of a doubt whom done it as in the case against Nieslen and Wright.

How do you feel about the Yorkshire Ripper being so obese now and meeting Frank Bruno. Justice for his 13 victims and their families eh. That is a miscarriage of justice too!

 

[Waynflete]

And the Yorkshire Ripper is now 19stone is a culinary expert whom cooks steak in his Broadmoor Cell and gets to shake Frank Bruno's hands at parties. You miss the point about Shipman, in 1975 before he started his vile campaign if he knew he might die doing what he did, would he have started? None of us can tell, because we do not know Shipman's mind at the time. But we know that because it wasn't there it didn't stop him. My argument is that the death penalty might have been a deterent to him a seemingly intelligent man (and loads and loads others) it is also no use arguing about USA blah, blah, they have completely different laws (especially in respect of guns which massively effect murder rates).

Steven Wright the Suffolk Strangler (5 victims) was found with a hair of the head of one of his victims in his car footwell and a miniscule amount of blood of another of his victims on his flourescent jacket. Dennis Neilsen (10+ victims) was caught because the flesh of his victims were blocking up his communial drains.

Gulity enough for you? Well that will do for me.

You need to realise that murders happen and that there are murderers and that in some cases there is absolutely not a shadow of doubt whom the perpertrators are. They deserve to die as a punishment for what they have done and as a warning to others whom may be thinking of going down this path. You can talk about all the miscarriages of justice you want, I know these happen, but not all those convicted of murder need to be given the death penalty, it should be very rare and in my opinion only the most vile serial killers (with such overwhelming evidence as in Wright and Nielsen) should be eligible.

I think what you suggest has potential problems, because you're implying there are almost two different grades of 'guilty'. One where the person is found guilty in a normal fashion, another where there is 'such overwhelming evidence' that they are guilty that the death penalty is justified.

If we end up with a two-tier guilty system where some people are considered more guilty than others then that's problematic. If it's not 'beyond reasonable doubt' that someone is guilty then they shouldn't be found guilty in the first place. That doesn't mean the courts don't get it wrong sometimes, though.

I'd also question your faith in forensic evidence in proving guilt. From memory, the Guildford Four were found guilty based on forensic evidence that they had handled explosives, which turned out to be a tiny speck of chemicals from another source entirely. Yet they were sent to prison for years.

I'm not questioning its validity in the cases you mention, but just because there is 'scientific' evidence of someone's guilt doesn't make it infallible.

 

[Bold Seagull]

So you don't choose to argue against them, you decide to call them patronising.

I am not even interested in whether the public is for or against it and what opinio polls say. What has that got to do with my opinion.

It is pretty easy to read press coverage of cases to see where there is so much evidence against someone there is not a shadow of a doubt whom done it as in the case against Nieslen and Wright.

How do you feel about the Yorkshire Ripper being so obese now and meeting Frank Bruno. Justice for his 13 victims and their families eh. That is a miscarriage of justice too!

Peter Sutcliffe will never be let out of prison, a 1991 meeting between him, Jimmy Saville and Frank Bruno hardly qualifies his conviction as a miscarriage of justice, merely a ridiculous decision on behalf of the prison itself.

I think Waynflete has adequately covered the other points I was going to raise.

On a final note, we are talking about vile and evil deeds that is murder of another human being. Since the 1700's people have maintained that 'society' itself should not be responsible for committing murder as justice. Following WWII, the end of capital punishment was effectively bought about in this country, and throughout mainland mainstream Europe from the 1800's onwards. Perhaps after 50 years or so without capital punishment, we forget why there was such a ground swell of opinion to see it abolished in the first place.

 

[simmo]

I think what you suggest has potential problems, because you're implying there are almost two different grades of 'guilty'. One where the person is found guilty in a normal fashion, another where there is 'such overwhelming evidence' that they are guilty that the death penalty is justified.

If we end up with a two-tier guilty system where some people are considered more guilty than others then that's problematic. If it's not 'beyond reasonable doubt' that someone is guilty then they shouldn't be found guilty in the first place. That doesn't mean the courts don't get it wrong sometimes, though.

I'd also question your faith in forensic evidence in proving guilt. From memory, the Guildford Four were found guilty based on forensic evidence that they had handled explosives, which turned out to be a tiny speck of chemicals from another source entirely. Yet they were sent to prison for years.

I'm not questioning its validity in the cases you mention, but just because there is 'scientific' evidence of someone's guilt doesn't make it infallible.

No there are not two grades of guilty, it is just that in some cases because of evidence that is so overwhelming some are more guilty than others (this happens now with or without the death penalty argument). How about Peter Tobin as another example, where one (or maybe two) of the girls bodies was found buried in the garden of one of his old houses and a knife he used to kill one of them was found in his house at that times loft. That seems pretty strong evidence to me.

There is a difference between serial murderers, murderers and mass murderers. In the case of serial murderers (they are different from multiple murderers as they, serial killers, kill many people at differing incidents) there is sometimes overwhelming evidence they are guilty. I cannot think of one serial killer where there has been a miscarriage of justice.

Only Serial killers may be hanged. To be hanged. The verdict and the evidence that a judge has heard must lead him to believe the verdict is beyond all doubt. If he thinks so and recommends the death sentence, this decision is then refered to a senior panel of 3 judges including the most senior law lord. All 3 review the case. If all 3 find that based on the evidence presented the case is beyond all doubt (split decision life without parole) then they recommend to the home secretary execution. The home secretary has the final say. In the last ten years using this method I reckon the number of executions would have been less than 10.

Nilesen, Tobin, Wright are all as guilty as hell and they should rot in it.

 

[Waynflete]

No there are not two grades of guilty, it is just that in some cases because of evidence that is so overwhelming some are more guilty than others

Sorry but this is a completely contradictory statement.

I do understand your point, that for some people it is as clear as day that they are guilty.

But under our legal system NOBODY, no matter how trivial the crime, should be found guilty unless it is beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

What you are arguing implies that it's okay for people who are not serial killers to be found guilty even if there is some doubt. I know that isn't what you're saying but that is the implication of your argument.

If someone is to be convicted of a crime, even if it's stealing a bag of sweets, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If that conviction is uncertain they should be acquitted.

So if someone is found guilty of a crime they should be punished based on the severity of the crime... whether they are very guilty or slightly less certainly guilty should not come into it, because if there is any uncertainty whatsoever they should be not be convicted.

 

[simmo]

Sorry but this is a completely contradictory statement.

I do understand your point, that for some people it is as clear as day that they are guilty.

But under our legal system NOBODY, no matter how trivial the crime, should be found guilty unless it is beyond all reasonable doubt that they are guilty.

What you are arguing implies that it's okay for people who are not serial killers to be found guilty even if there is some doubt. I know that isn't what you're saying but that is the implication of your argument.

If someone is to be convicted of a crime, even if it's stealing a bag of sweets, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. If that conviction is uncertain they should be acquitted.

So if someone is found guilty of a crime they should be punished based on the severity of the crime... whether they are very guilty or slightly less certainly guilty should not come into it, because if there is any uncertainty whatsoever they should be not be convicted.

It is not a contradictory statement.

It is just that in some cases because of evidence that is so overwhelming some are more guilty than others.

Only one piece of evidence may be enough to convict killer A, wheras 10 pieces of evidence convict killer B

It really isn't that difficult it is very easy to read in newspaper reports and see court transcripts, for example Michael Stone was convicted of murder on much flimsier evidence than Dennis Neislen for example, yet both were found guilty of murder.....what you are saying happens now, regardless of the arguments over capital punishment.

It's just that those against always refer to the ones that may be wrong, all I am doing is refering to the other ones that are so obviously correct.

 

[Waynflete]

It is not a contradictory statement.

It is just that in some cases because of evidence that is so overwhelming some are more guilty than others.

Only one piece of evidence may be enough to convict killer A, wheras 10 pieces of evidence convict killer B

It really isn't that difficult it is very easy to read in newspaper reports and see court transcripts, for example Michael Stone was convicted of murder on much flimsier evidence than Dennis Neislen for example, yet both were found guilty of murder.....what you are saying happens now, regardless of the arguments over capital punishment.

It's just that those against always refer to the ones that may be wrong, all I am doing is refering to the other ones that are so obviously correct.

I agree with you in practice - hence the existence of majority verdicts as well as unanimous verdicts, allowing for some level of disagreement between jury members over the question of guilt. In principle, though, either someone is guilty beyond reasonable doubt or they are not. Once they have been found guilty the 'safety' of that conviction should not affect sentencing (again, in principle).

I think it would be a concern if, for example, someone who was convicted by majority verdict was given a lighter sentence than someone convicted by unanimous verdict, which is the implication of your argument. But it's an interesting one.

On your last point, that gets us back to the question of what you would rather have: One innocent man being wrongly convicted or five guilty men walking free. Personally I'd much rather we didn't punish innocent people, even if that means some guilty people will get off.

 

[Acker79]

It is not a contradictory statement.

It is just that in some cases because of evidence that is so overwhelming some are more guilty than others.

It kinda is. Ithink what you mean is closer to:

No one is more or less guilty, you either are guilty or you are not guilty. Sometimes, there is a greater certainty of said guilt.

 

[Triggaaar]

Haven't voted as I would support it for cases where the crim was proven to be guilty, not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond even that (eg video of the crime, caught red handed etc).
But obviously some convictions (beyond reasonable doubt) later turn out to be incorrect, so I'm not sure it could ever work.

 

[BensGrandad]

I can never understand the people who say yes for certain crimes of killing. How is it any worse to kill one person irrespective of age or occupation than another, or the circumstances surronding the killing. Every person is a relative of somebody and will be sadly missed when deprived of life