Old subject revisited

[steveo]

Steveo, if you read a book called Freakonomics the vast majority of people on Death Row statistically live LONGER than if they remained on the streets. Make of that what you will.

Interesting stuff MK. To me thats says people on Death Row have far to many appeals to make before their sentenced is executed. Sentenced today, execution next week.

Did you fix your boiler?

 

[Lord Football]

DNA evidence would not have existed for these chaps so the chances of proving guilty are surely higher now.

Colin Stagg. The bloke who "killed Jill Dando". How recent do you want?

 

[osymandus]

Colin Stagg. The bloke who "killed Jill Dando". How recent do you want?

Also here the man who pioneer teh techniques of DNA profiling is worried about its usage and abuse .
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2500,features,dna-the-informer-in-your-blood

 

[South Bank Hank]

Agree with a lot of that G except the bit about taking the life of another in cold blood. It's back to the Tony Martin scenario and other similar cases - if it's in defence of your property, your family or yourself and you shoot to kill does that mean you've forfeited your own life?

I don't mean that actually and am referring simply to whether or not you allow the death penalty as a punishment. The definition of murder is a different question and would have to include the "with malice aforethought" elements too and a lack of any mitigating factors. We would also need to be 100% certain of guilt - not almost certain and certainly not just beyond reasonable doubt. I'm talking smoking gun and bloody knife type stuff here, not DNA which could be tampered, placed.

Canvey Shrimper and Lord Football both made the type of arguments that make me question my belief that the death penalty CAN be appropriate and, as much as any, demonstrate why we abolished it.

I simply do not accept that, as a civilised society, we may not apply the ultimate sanction, and stand by my argument that it isn't us passing any sentence out of revenge, but the murderer (in full knowledge of the law) sentencing himself to his own death by his actions.

 

[Andyhsufc]

I don't mean that actually and am referring simply to whether or not you allow the death penalty as a punishment. The definition of murder is a different question and would have to include the "with malice aforethought" elements too and a lack of any mitigating factors. We would also need to be 100% certain of guilt - not almost certain and certainly not just beyond reasonable doubt. I'm talking smoking gun and bloody knife type stuff here, not DNA which could be tampered, placed.

Canvey Shrimper and Lord Football both made the type of arguments that make me question my belief that the death penalty CAN be appropriate and, as much as any, demonstrate why we abolished it.

I simply do not accept that, as a civilised society, we may not apply the ultimate sanction, and stand by my argument that it isn't us passing any sentence out of revenge, but the murderer (in full knowledge of the law) sentencing himself to his own death by his actions.

Wouldn't you then be creating a two-tier sentencing system then? If there is irrefutable evidence, you get killed and if there is no, you don't. Seems a bit unfair to me.

 

[canveyshrimper]

DNA evidence would not have existed for these chaps so the chances of proving guilty are surely higher now.

With regard to the USA death row people, how many are there for shooting someone? If it was illegal to have a gun over there how many wouldnt have killed? Im only guessing but it must be a lot harder to stab someone to death than shoot them.

As far as the case of Derek Bentley is concerned DNA would not have made any difference whatsoever. He, by his own admission was at the scene when a policeman was murdered, even though he did not pull the trigger.

 

[South Bank Hank]

Wouldn't you then be creating a two-tier sentencing system then? If there is irrefutable evidence, you get killed and if there is no, you don't. Seems a bit unfair to me.

I understand your point but am not too worried about a question of fairness for convicted murderers. There's a clear enough difference between someone being convicted on the strength of a smoking gun and someone being convicted on the strength of a DNA match.

Even though I'm suggesting a sentence based on evidence, the law is already littered with multi-tier sentencing and rightly so.

 

[Andyhsufc]

I understand your point but am not too worried about a question of fairness for convicted murderers. There's a clear enough difference between someone being convicted on the strength of a smoking gun and someone being convicted on the strength of a DNA match.

The law is littered with multi-tier sentencing and rightly so.

I do take your points on board but why should two people who commit similar murders get vastly different sentences? Also, how many murderers are caught in the act?

 

[SUFC Forever]

Definately bring back hanging. These pieces of **** killed this poor kid with about as much thought as "shall I have another cup of tea" - what a disgraceful and disgusting society we live in, killing this boy for "not showing them respect" - respect them for what? Carrying a knife? They stabbed him eleven times in five seconds so obviously wanted to kill him and as far as I am concerned, forfeit their right to live for that.

Forget all the crap about trying to rehabilitate these people - they are career criminals who know nothing better. They were destined for a life of crime from the day they came out of the womb and the world would be better off with them dead, instead of poor Ben Kinsella who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I know all the arguments for and aginst the coppers setting people up - so many cases come to mind, but with DNA as it is now there is much less margin for error to send an innocent man to the gallows.

In a civilised society there should be no corperal punishment but the world is not a civilised society any more and something has to happen. It is such a political hot potato that I cannot ever see it returning however and more is the pity for that.

 

[steveo]

Colin Stagg. The bloke who "killed Jill Dando". How recent do you want?

To be fair LF I was referring to the three you highlighted and the time they were convicted.

 

[South Bank Hank]

I do take your points on board but why should two people who commit similar murders get vastly different sentences? Also, how many murderers are caught in the act?

On the first point, it's not that you don't want both to have the same sentence, it's simply a question of overturnability (even if I did just make up a word).

As for being caught in the act, there are already a huge number of CCTV cameras around that have seen murderers sentenced. I'm not advocating a dramatic cut in the number of people in society here, just a notion of law and what could be an acceptable sentence in a civilised world if the responibility for any action is placed on the murderer and not the courts.

 

[steveo]

It is such a political hot potato that I cannot ever see it returning however and more is the pity for that.

But if this poll is representative of a reasonable cross section of the community, if a political party campaigned to bring it back, it would surely be a big vote winner.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Definately bring back hanging. These pieces of **** killed this poor kid with about as much thought as "shall I have another cup of tea" - what a disgraceful and disgusting society we live in, killing this boy for "not showing them respect" - respect them for what? Carrying a knife? They stabbed him eleven times in five seconds so obviously wanted to kill him and as far as I am concerned, forfeit their right to live for that.

Forget all the crap about trying to rehabilitate these people - they are career criminals who know nothing better. They were destined for a life of crime from the day they came out of the womb and the world would be better off with them dead, instead of poor Ben Kinsella who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I know all the arguments for and aginst the coppers setting people up - so many cases come to mind, but with DNA as it is now there is much less margin for error to send an innocent man to the gallows.

In a civilised society there should be no corperal punishment but the world is not a civilised society any more and something has to happen. It is such a political hot potato that I cannot ever see it returning however and more is the pity for that.

It's not so much a political hot potato, I believe it's enshrined within the human rights act that the death penalty can NEVER be restored. I doubt if any of our political parties (however extreme) would back restoring the death penalty.

 

[canveyshrimper]

But if this poll is representative of a reasonable cross section of the community, if a political party campaigned to bring it back, it would surely be a big vote winner.

As I said in the post below I don't see any poitical party campaigning on a platform to restore the death penalty.

 

[osymandus]

Definately bring back hanging. These pieces of **** killed this poor kid with about as much thought as "shall I have another cup of tea" - what a disgraceful and disgusting society we live in, killing this boy for "not showing them respect" - respect them for what? Carrying a knife? They stabbed him eleven times in five seconds so obviously wanted to kill him and as far as I am concerned, forfeit their right to live for that.

The same happened in the heady days of philosphical practice of the Athenian Greeks , the penalty was the same in Rome , in virtual every single civilisation until now , it does not work, the inventiveness the adaptability that marks humans as surviviers contains no morals, you kill off killers the next generation who do it just get better.
This respect crap is a socail motivation it needs to be broken but not with state sanctioned violence .

Forget all the crap about trying to rehabilitate these people - they are career criminals who know nothing better. They were destined for a life of crime from the day they came out of the womb and the world would be better off with them dead, instead of poor Ben Kinsella who was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

What utter tosh ! People alway's have choices always. This is the danager we mark people down as already slated for a certain type of person , its lazy , wooly thinking we cannot have it ever , there are no easy solutions to this . We as individuals need to guard against (in mental and physical ways if need be ) but not to right off others by our own prejudeces for that way leads the final solution, and we judge others with some superiourity complex .


I know all the arguments for and aginst the coppers setting people up - so many cases come to mind, but with DNA as it is now there is much less margin for error to send an innocent man to the gallows.

Nope as posted in my previous link , even its inventor is worried about its usage .

In a civilised society there should be no corperal punishment but the world is not a civilised society any more and something has to happen. It is such a political hot potato that I cannot ever see it returning however and more is the pity for that.

Our issues is maybe we have too many preconcied ideas that we waht a harmocinous easy solution that will never exisit , we have become to reliant on others to think and tell us what to do . Ask yourself why over more then 2 Million years has the desire to slay or kill our own kind not been removed from the gene pool ?

 

[Andyhsufc]

On the first point, it's not that you don't want both to have the same sentence, it's simply a question of overturnability (even if I did just make up a word).

As for being caught in the act, there are already a huge number of CCTV cameras around that have seen murderers sentenced. I'm not advocating a dramatic cut in the number of people in society here, just a notion of law and what could be an acceptable sentence in a civilised world if the responibility for any action is placed on the murderer and not the courts.

Well then what would be wrong with giving people a life (without parole) sentence if they commit a murder? This would mean that all sentences are uniform and that the public are protected.

 

[OldBlueLady]

It's not so much a political hot potato, I believe it's enshrined within the human rights act that the death penalty can NEVER be restored. I doubt if any of our political parties (however extreme) would back restoring the death penalty.

Interesting point Harry, without checking, I assume all those signed up to the EU no longer have the death penalty?

I don't mean that actually and am referring simply to whether or not you allow the death penalty as a punishment.

I simply do not accept that, as a civilised society, we may not apply the ultimate sanction, and stand by my argument that it isn't us passing any sentence out of revenge, but the murderer (in full knowledge of the law) sentencing himself to his own death by his actions.

I didn't think you did G, just wanted it clarified, sometimes - as I know only too well - things don't quite come over as you intended. I also agree with your view there, it's the ultimate forfeit in my opinion, and I fail to see why people like Hindley and Brady should have been kept, pampered and safe, for all those years.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Well then what would be wrong with giving people a life (without parole) sentence if they commit a murder? This would mean that all sentences are uniform and that the public are protected.

I've long thought life sentences should be exactly that. However and once again I think you will find that enshrined in the human rights act that any prisoner given a life sentence must also be given a date when he/she can apply for parole. This IMO should be the day they die.

 

[Andyhsufc]

I've long thought life sentences should be exactly that. However and once again I think you will find that enshrined in the human rights act that any prisoner given a life sentence must also be given a date when he/she can apply for parole. This IMO should be the day they die.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579850/Levi-Bellfield-sentenced-to-whole-life-in-jail.html

I think there is a mechanism in British law which allows you to jail somebody for life without parole. The case above is a good example.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Interesting point Harry, without checking, I assume all those signed up to the EU no longer have the death penalty?

I didn't think you did G, just wanted it clarified, sometimes - as I know only too well - things don't quite come over as you intended. I also agree with your view there, it's the ultimate forfeit in my opinion, and I fail to see why people like Hindley and Brady should have been kept, pampered and safe, for all those years.

I think so Kay, though can't be sure of recent new members such as Romania & Bulgaria, who certainly until recent years had the death penalty on their statute book.

At the time of the Brady/Hindley trial I would have supported them hanging. However I have come round to thinking there is something much more satisfying in mental torture in then knowing the day they would be released would be the day they day. Despite the best efforts of wooly minded pillocks like Longford.