DanBettin Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, CaptainBeaky said: We don't - we *really* don't... DNA tests aren't foolproof - because they only look at a restricted set of markers, not the whole genome, which introduces a statistical probability of error - false positive or false negative. The burden of proof becomes much greater when a person's life rests on the outcome. Forget scumbag murderers and rapists - let's assume YOU are arrested for murder. You know you are innocent - you were over a hundred miles away, but would you want to bet your life on the proposition that "DNA evidence is foolproof"? If you don't, why should anyone else? Abolishing the death penalty isn't about letting the guilty off, it's about protecting the innocent, and preventing irreversible miscarriages of justice. And that's before even considering framing/corruption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 I think India got it wrong, prevention is better than cure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 31 minutes ago, CaptainBeaky said: Abolishing the death penalty isn't about letting the guilty off, it's about protecting the innocent, and preventing irreversible miscarriages of justice. Compare the times in the last decade or so ,when ,after someone is convicted and sentenced of a crime that used to attract the death penalty, where after they have been found to be innocent. To the times when someone has been released from such a crime, and gone on to commit other violent crimes . If YOU are happy with the ratio, then good for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanBettin Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Rewulf said: Compare the times in the last decade or so ,when ,after someone is convicted and sentenced of a crime that used to attract the death penalty, where after they have been found to be innocent. To the times when someone has been released from such a crime, and gone on to commit other violent crimes . If YOU are happy with the ratio, then good for you. This is a fair point. Although if we compare ratios like for like we get into the realms of whether one has a bigger impact than the other. For example, is someone reoffending worse than killing an innocent man by death penalty. That's a whole other world of debate. Edited April 24, 2018 by DanBettin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 35 minutes ago, henry d said: I think India got it wrong, prevention is better than cure Not sure I follow that...prevention of murder? How do we achieve that? I don’t understand what the cure is either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henry d Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 Prevention of crime is better than the cure of any form of punishment. How else do we prevent things or perhaps it would be better to say reduce the incidence of (murder/rape/violent assault....) happening? Most of the time simple education works, in India it is a bigger problem due to poverty and social and class systems, but a good starting point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, DanBettin said: This is a fair point. Although if we compare ratios like for like we get into the realms of whether one has a bigger impact than the other. For example, is someone reoffending worse than killing an innocent man by death penalty. That's a whole other world of debate. That would really depend on the crime wouldnt it ? But its not really the issue, if the death penalty was only used in absolutely certain cases , and as Capt Beaky said not just DNA, then we COULD use it. And the ratio would be irrelevant . The answer was in relation to some people being wrongly hanged, which without checking, was a very small number. And thats with dated tech. Compared to modern methods, and correct application , we could be 99.99% certain of safe convictions, and even then the death penalty would only apply to very severe crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumfelter Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 57 minutes ago, CaptainBeaky said: We don't - we *really* don't... DNA tests aren't foolproof - because they only look at a restricted set of markers, not the whole genome, which introduces a statistical probability of error - false positive or false negative. The burden of proof becomes much greater when a person's life rests on the outcome. Forget scumbag murderers and rapists - let's assume YOU are arrested for murder. You know you are innocent - you were over a hundred miles away, but would you want to bet your life on the proposition that "DNA evidence is foolproof"? If you don't, why should anyone else? Abolishing the death penalty isn't about letting the guilty off, it's about protecting the innocent, and preventing irreversible miscarriages of justice. So they'd need DNA evidence to know for certain who killed Lee Rigby? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 1 minute ago, stumfelter said: So they'd need DNA evidence to know for certain who killed Lee Rigby? Well, youve got to be sure about these things, would nt want an innocent man going to jail for it would you ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanBettin Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Rewulf said: That would really depend on the crime wouldnt it ? But its not really the issue, if the death penalty was only used in absolutely certain cases , and as Capt Beaky said not just DNA, then we COULD use it. And the ratio would be irrelevant . The answer was in relation to some people being wrongly hanged, which without checking, was a very small number. And thats with dated tech. Compared to modern methods, and correct application , we could be 99.99% certain of safe convictions, and even then the death penalty would only apply to very severe crimes. Yep, agreed. So then, we get down to the issue of certainty. Certainty of nobody tampering with evidence even. If we can say 100% (I doubt this will ever be the case) then the only reason I oppose it is the cost. Why should we spend extra* on the death penalty when we can stick them in solitary confinement for their life for less cost? Only THEN is the ratio irrelevant. * Evidence tells me so far that the death penalty costs more. Edited April 24, 2018 by DanBettin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 Just now, DanBettin said: Yep, agreed. So then, we get down to the issue of certainty. Certainty of nobody tampering evidence even. If we can say 100% (I doubt this will ever be the case) then the only reason I oppose it is the cost. Why should we spend extra* on the death penalty when we can stick them in solitary confinement for their life for less cost? Only THEN is the ratio irrelevant. * Evidence tells me so far that the death penalty costs more. See above ^^ And again Dan , what evidence it costs more ? A UK source please, for UK executions . And again ,I dont care if it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanBettin Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Rewulf said: See above ^^ And again Dan , what evidence it costs more ? A UK source please, for UK executions . And again ,I dont care if it does. You don't care if it does, but maybe other tax payers would. Why would we want to pay any extra than is absolutely necessary towards the dealing of these scumbags? We don't have the death penalty and haven't for some time, how do you expect UK stats? Keep in mind, the OP for the death penalty made the claim that it's cheaper, the burden of proof is with that side of the argument. I posted the most relevant stats we have on the matter, I've seen nothing from the opposite side. Well, aside from the fact we know dougy can sort it for a pound if needs be. Edited April 24, 2018 by DanBettin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, DanBettin said: You don't care if it does, but maybe other tax payers would. Why would we want to pay any extra than is absolutely necessary towards the dealing of these scumbags? We don't have the death penalty and haven't for some time, how do you expect UK stats? Keep in mind, the OP for the death penalty made the claim that it's cheaper, the burden of proof is with that side of the argument. I posted the most relevant stats we have on the matter, I've seen nothing from the opposite side. Well, aside from the fact we know dougy can sort it for a pound if needs be. So how can you say it would cost more than prison ? You have no stats, so you used American ones, where they keep them on death row for 25 years, with an army of lawyers and appeals that cost a huge amount of tax payers dollars ! Yank prisons are not like UK prisons, they have hard labour, and it costs nothing like the figures it costs us. Google US prison population and costs. Your stats are NOT relevant to a UK situation, so your argument is invalid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanBettin Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Rewulf said: So how can you say it would cost more than prison ? You have no stats, so you used American ones, where they keep them on death row for 25 years, with an army of lawyers and appeals that cost a huge amount of tax payers dollars ! Yank prisons are not like UK prisons, they have hard labour, and it costs nothing like the figures it costs us. Google US prison population and costs. Your stats are NOT relevant to a UK situation, so your argument is invalid. Wait there a minute, they're more relevant than no stats. So the claim has been made here that it's cheaper, how? What are the costs involved in both options? Because the studies I've posted are as relevant as you're gonna get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 Im going round in circles with you here. Read my last post again, since when did British law have a quarter century of appeals on a capital sentence ? Brit prisons cost a lot more to run than Yank ones per capita. Do the maths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanBettin Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 Which is exactly how projections and forecasting works, it's best guess. Just now, Rewulf said: Read my last post again, since when did British law have a quarter century of appeals on a capital sentence ? Last death penalty was carried out over 50 years ago, so the question's surely irrelevant? The law will have to cater for the death penalty however it caters for it, but to say the process would be the same as it would 50 years ago is a bit naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, DanBettin said: Which is exactly how projections and forecasting works, it's best guess. Last death penalty was carried out over 50 years ago, so the question's surely irrelevant? The law will have to cater for the death penalty however it caters for it, but to say the process would be the same as it would 50 years ago is a bit naive. So let me get this right . You have absolutely no idea or hard facts about how a renewed capital punishment law would work in the UK, or how much it would cost ? But would assume it would be like the American model, even though American justice and prisons are nothing like ours ? Why didnt you just say that in the first place Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 Prison costs for US and UK per prisoner, per year on average are - US - $31,997 or around £22,900 UK - £38,042 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/19/2016-17040/annual-determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration http://www.russellwebster.com/prisoncosts17/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 9 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: Prison costs for US and UK per prisoner, per year on average are - US - $31,997 or around £22,900 UK - £38,042 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/07/19/2016-17040/annual-determination-of-average-cost-of-incarceration http://www.russellwebster.com/prisoncosts17/ The US prisoners on death row cost the state around 3 x as much. As an aside, Ive always said, some prisoners wouldnt need to reoffend if they got 38 k a year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, Rewulf said: The US prisoners on death row cost the state around 3 x as much. Either way, £15,000 per prisoner is a massive difference Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 Just now, Newbie to this said: Either way, £15,000 per prisoner is a massive difference Definitely , plus they are made to work. Some prisons use the inmates 'salaries' to pay for upkeep too. You want a new mattress , its coming out your wages Bubba ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 1 minute ago, Rewulf said: Definitely , plus they are made to work. Some prisons use the inmates 'salaries' to pay for upkeep too. You want a new mattress , its coming out your wages Bubba ! seems sensible to me, if I need a new mattress it comes out of my wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 53 minutes ago, henry d said: Prevention of crime is better than the cure of any form of punishment. How else do we prevent things or perhaps it would be better to say reduce the incidence of (murder/rape/violent assault....) happening? Most of the time simple education works, in India it is a bigger problem due to poverty and social and class systems, but a good starting point. I’d agree with the first paragraph, and can also agree education is key, but if poverty and social and economic problems such as poverty are a factor then we’re scuppered. None of the things you have mentioned are relevant to many individuals currently imprisoned in this country, and although possibly relevant to India, it would appear they are seeking an alternative ‘cure’. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted April 24, 2018 Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said: seems sensible to me, if I need a new mattress it comes out of my wages. Or if Bubbas a bit short this month, he could use your mattress, or you .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted April 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted April 24, 2018 Lets hope that when tried the scumbag who done that to the girl in India gets time in a cell with Big Bubba when he is horny before they execute him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.