Capital Punishment

[Wb123]

On 02/02/2018 at 07:44, Gordon R said:

I cited Myra Hindley and Ian Brady and asked a straight question. I can only conclude, from your simplistic answer, which avoided the direct question, that you think they were innocent.

Given Ian Brady's determination to be let die keeping him going would seem to have been a worse punishment. 

[Gordon R]

He didn't want to die. He liked being the centre of attention.

[johnny]

On 02/02/2018 at 17:49, The Mighty Prawn said:

This is a terrible system, the US prisons are full of people doing life for three minor things such as a homeless guy stealing some food - granted it is a crime but to get life for it is madness.

Also there have been cases where someone knows they are going to get life for a 3rd so go all out and escalate trying anything to escape

I never said put them in prison hang them or shoot them. They are a waste of oxygen anyway

[JimLondon]

On 02/02/2018 at 17:49, The Mighty Prawn said:

This is a terrible system, the US prisons are full of people doing life for three minor things such as a homeless guy stealing some food - granted it is a crime but to get life for it is madness.

Also there have been cases where someone knows they are going to get life for a 3rd so go all out and escalate trying anything to escape

Rightly or wrongly the first thing that came into my mind was, a homeless guy now has a home getting served 3 square a day, maybe that was he’s intention. Maybe it’s my over active imagination.

[Winston72]

6 hours ago, Gordon R said:

He didn't want to die. He liked being the centre of attention.

Quite rare we agree but +1

PS gates of Janus is worth reading

Edited February 3, 2018 by Winston72

[Nial]

I'm not sure where I stand but I read somewhere that a surprising proportion of killers who have served their sentence go on to kill again.

Someone earlier in the thread said better to let 100 go free than hang an innocent man. What if the consequence of this

approach is another 5 inocent people are killed?

 

[Bazooka Joe]

I think it' justified in certain cases, Child Killers/Terrorism/Premeditated Murder as long as it's proved 100%.

All these below banged to rights, who IMO should have had the rope........

lee rigby’s killers  
soham murderers
London attackers
Ian Brady
Myra Hindley
Mark Bridger....April Jones
Levi Bellfield....Milly Dowler
Rose/Fred West
Dennis Nilson
Steven Wright
Dale Cregan.....Killed two female police officers & two civilians.
Peter Sutcliffe
Harold Shipman

[Gordon R]

The "what if they are innocent" line gets trotted out with astonishing regularity. Look at the list above and tell me how many are innocent.

[Vince Green]

8 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

The "what if they are innocent" line gets trotted out with astonishing regularity. Look at the list above and tell me how many are innocent.

Well if they can say that Dr Crippen may have been innocent all sorts of possibilities could emerge in the future. These days with DNA and the like a miscarriage is less likely but I still think the members of any potential jury would be the weak link. 

Edited February 5, 2018 by Vince Green

[Rewulf]

10 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

The "what if they are innocent" line gets trotted out with astonishing regularity. Look at the list above and tell me how many are innocent.

Nope ,all plenty fit for the noose.
Fit for a bit worse really, but we re too civilised these days.

 

Edit.
Ill add this, it wouldnt be so bad if it didnt cost so much to keep them in jail.
Whilst the victims families live knowing they are kept warm and fed/clothed ,its precious little comfort knowing the man who raped ,tortured and murdered your little girl is having a reasonably comfortable life inside, and you have to pay for it.
I cant imagine how that feels.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Rewulf

[das]

On 02/02/2018 at 14:09, Deker said:

Fully agree with Figgy on this one, there's no deterrent at all at the minute, people seem to think that these murderers and rapists have human rights, they don't they lose them when they took the human rights away from their victims

Agree 100%

[Delwint]

100% agree with Figgy too!!

[The Mighty Prawn]

I'm enjoying this debate chaps, good points on both sides

whilst I don't disagree there are plenty of people the world wouldn't miss I just can't see how you could legislate a two tier system. As we know the law has proven many times to be fallible so couldn't execute everyone, and couldn't execute the likes of Lee Rigby killers just because there is unequivocal evidence because there would be other more grey cases - would it be capital if there were plenty of witnesses for example, because that could still be wrong down the line and too late for the guy who got hanged.

its an emotive subject but the reality is regardless of the morality it would be impossible to create any legislation that could effectively cover the many permutations.

[Westley]

On 03/02/2018 at 14:08, Delwint said:

I had a colleague who used to work in Saudi for years who said he had seen a sign in a shop saying “if you value your hands, do not steal!!” He said in all those years he only saw a couple of people with one hand and never any with two missing! 

Slight change to the hanging debate but a few people have said there is no deterrent in the uk. I know we’d never have that here but it was just an example. 

There was a guy with a wooden hand.....................................he won his appeal apparently  !        

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

and couldn't execute the likes of Lee Rigby killers just because there is unequivocal evidence because there would be other more grey cases

Nothing grey about the Lee Rigby murder, it was plane black & white, caught on camera & dozens of witnesses....guilty as charged & should have hung IMO.

[Gordon R]

Quote

As we know the law has proven many times to be fallible so couldn't execute everyone

Based on that, why do we send people to prison? They might be innocent. Although they will still be alive, how do you put right the time they have been in jail.

I am at loss as to why people say we can't have two tier justice. Lee Rigby's killers were seen killing him, detained where they committed the murder - just how much proof do we need?  He wasn't killed by a sniper in the grassy knoll - they did it.

[The Mighty Prawn]

44 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

 

I am at loss as to why people say we can't have two tier justice. Lee Rigby's killers were seen killing him, detained where they committed the murder - just how much proof do we need?  He wasn't killed by a sniper in the grassy knoll - they did it.

Again I completely agree that the world would be a much better place without these people but how could you distinguish those suffering mental illness or similar? Must they face the noose if they commit a crime in front of witnesses?

im not being deliberately confrontational and exchanging views is the whole point of this discourse, I just can't see how it could be implemented and policed so to speak.

[Gordon R]

I accept that their is a view - other than hanging - I just don't agree with it. The law differentiates between those who had diminished responsibility now.

Quote

an unbalanced mental state which is considered to make a person less answerable for murder, being recognized as grounds to reduce the charge to that of manslaughter.

If it can't work, why do we still have it?

[Danger-Mouse]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

Based on that, why do we send people to prison? They might be innocent. Although they will still be alive, how do you put right the time they have been in jail.

I am at loss as to why people say we can't have two tier justice. Lee Rigby's killers were seen killing him, detained where they committed the murder - just how much proof do we need?  He wasn't killed by a sniper in the grassy knoll - they did it.

We are fallible, and mistakes are inevitable, but our justice system is pretty good and most people ending up in court are likely to be guilty. For those instances where it is later proved that they were innocent then the only option is financial reimbursement. Whilst it's true that that money won't make up for the years you've lost at least you will be alive, probably well off and your name exonerated.

There's a certain amount of sense in your second statement, and in truth I wouldn't care much if those butchers were hanged. However there will still be exceptions where someone is guilty of what is generally considered a heinous crime but maybe doesn't deserve the death penalty.

I was listening to a podcast the other day where they were talking about a guy who walked up to another guy, pulled out a pistol, and blew the fellows brains out. He was caught, freely admitted committing the murder and yet was only given a 10 year suspended sentence. Why? Because the guy he killed had molested his daughter.

So, a pretty black and white case of murder, with an admission of guilt, but is that someone you'd want to see dancing the Tyburn Jig? I suspect most people on here who have kids, probably even those that don't, would feel a lot of empathy for the killer in that case.

An exceptional circumstance for sure, but nonetheless it illustrates that the law isn't always black and white, even when at first glance it appears to be.

[Scully]

8 hours ago, Danger-Mouse said:

We are fallible, and mistakes are inevitable, but our justice system is pretty good and most people ending up in court are likely to be guilty. For those instances where it is later proved that they were innocent then the only option is financial reimbursement. Whilst it's true that that money won't make up for the years you've lost at least you will be alive, probably well off and your name exonerated.

There's a certain amount of sense in your second statement, and in truth I wouldn't care much if those butchers were hanged. However there will still be exceptions where someone is guilty of what is generally considered a heinous crime but maybe doesn't deserve the death penalty.

I was listening to a podcast the other day where they were talking about a guy who walked up to another guy, pulled out a pistol, and blew the fellows brains out. He was caught, freely admitted committing the murder and yet was only given a 10 year suspended sentence. Why? Because the guy he killed had molested his daughter.

So, a pretty black and white case of murder, with an admission of guilt, but is that someone you'd want to see dancing the Tyburn Jig? I suspect most people on here who have kids, probably even those that don't, would feel a lot of empathy for the killer in that case.

An exceptional circumstance for sure, but nonetheless it illustrates that the law isn't always black and white, even when at first glance it appears to be.

Mitigating circumstances would apply just as they do now. 

[Gordon R]

I am with Danger-Mouse and Scully. I wouldn't want to see the man cited above - facing the death penalty. What I am saying is that it should be an option, where we are 100% certain of guilt, there are no mitigating factors or diminished responsibility.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Gordon R

[Scully]

59 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

 I wouldn't want to see the man cited above - facing the death penalty. What I am saying is that it should be an option, where we are 100% certain of guilt, there are no mitigating factors or diminished responsibility.

This.

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

I am with Danger-Mouse and Scully. I wouldn't want to see the man cited above - facing the death penalty. What I am saying is that it should be an option, where we are 100% certain of guilt, there are no mitigating factors or diminished responsibility.

Got to say I agree.

 

I've said in other threads, I really don't understand the obsession in this country with the rights of criminals. As for the innocent being executed, as has already been mentioned, set a higher standard of proof, the rules the court must follow now is they must err on the side of caution, Blackstones formulation states "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", although the ratio is open to interpretation the wrongly convicted is far far lower than this (and rightly so), the threshold could be set that any possible doubt and the death penalty is off the table, so I don't see the argument about the wrongly convicted being an issue.

[Rewulf]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

Got to say I agree.

 

I've said in other threads, I really don't understand the obsession in this country with the rights of criminals. As for the innocent being executed, as has already been mentioned, set a higher standard of proof, the rules the court must follow now is they must err on the side of caution, Blackstones formulation states "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", although the ratio is open to interpretation the wrongly convicted is far far lower than this (and rightly so), the threshold could be set that any possible doubt and the death penalty is off the table, so I don't see the argument about the wrongly convicted being an issue.

Unfortunately thats going to complicate an already complicated system.
Courts already require 'beyond reasonable doubt'
Setting the burden of proof higher, means more guilty walk, and theres plenty do anyway.

Lets be honest, it would be nice to have the death penalty as an option, even the Americans dont use it that often, despite the high murder rate.

We arent talking about hanging starving kids for stealing a loaf of bread, like some liberals seem to think.

Its a deterrent .

[12gauge82]

17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Unfortunately thats going to complicate an already complicated system.
Courts already require 'beyond reasonable doubt'
Setting the burden of proof higher, means more guilty walk, and theres plenty do anyway.

Lets be honest, it would be nice to have the death penalty as an option, even the Americans dont use it that often, despite the high murder rate.

We arent talking about hanging starving kids for stealing a loaf of bread, like some liberals seem to think.

Its a deterrent .

I don't follow, if someone accused of murder is facing the death penalty but there is the slightest possibility of doubt the death penalty is not a sentencing option for the judge and they would be sentenced according to the rules we have now, the jury wouldn't have to do anything diffeent than now, it would be at the point the judge sentences that anything would be done different