Moral Dilemma

[Saracen]

The rehabilitation aspect wouldn't (and shouldn't) be an issue if there were mandatory whole-life tariffs for certain crimes. As for the taxpayers burden argument, as studies in America have shown, it costs the public more to carry out the DP than it does to keep them in prison for their entire life. ....

Oh, not this hoary old chestnut again.

Those studies reflect the cost of the US justice system. We don't have the US justice system ... thank goodness.

The DP itself is not expensive. Saddam Hussein proved that, by dragging enemies out back, and .... bang. What does a 9mm cartridge or two cost? $0.10?

And no, I'm not advocating Saddam's justice system.

The point is that costs in the US are based on process in the US. We don't have the US process, so the costs it imposes are utterly irrelevant to what it would cost here. As are Saddam's costs. Our costs, if we had the DP, would depend on our process, and without having a process, there's no way to ascertain that. And given that, unfortunately, we're never likely to have the DP, it's impossible to quantify.

[Ttaskmaster]

Last time I had cause to enquire, a 9mm round in the UK cost a staggering 45p.
That was back around 1992 though, so it'd probably be several quid now... plus import charges, delivery, insurance, H&S assessment, etc... It could cost thousands!!

Actually, speaking of H&S - I'm willing to bet that even if the DP were reinstated, H&S legislation would prohibit using any methods as they're deemed 'unsafe'!!

[opel80uk]

Oh, not this hoary old chestnut again.

Those studies reflect the cost of the US justice system. We don't have the US justice system ... thank goodness.

The DP itself is not expensive. Saddam Hussein proved that, by dragging enemies out back, and .... bang. What does a 9mm cartridge or two cost? $0.10?

And no, I'm not advocating Saddam's justice system.

The point is that costs in the US are based on process in the US. We don't have the US process, so the costs it imposes are utterly irrelevant to what it would cost here. As are Saddam's costs. Our costs, if we had the DP, would depend on our process, and without having a process, there's no way to ascertain that. And given that, unfortunately, we're never likely to have the DP, it's impossible to quantify.

It's not, in anyway, inconceivable to assume that, should the DP ever be brought back, and given the opposition to it, our process would be complex, lengthy and expensive, as are criminal trials at the moment. It's common sense that you would either have proper due process, and all the accompanying costs that go with it, to minimise the risk of miscarriages of justice, or you do it on the cheap. And bear in mind, it was you that said the DP should be applied in some cases, not me; surely the onus is you to show how, if you are really advocating it, we can avoid it becoming a drain on the taxpayer like it is in the system most similar to ours that still uses the DP, whilst offering the due process that you seem to imply would remove any chance of innocent people being executed.

So yes, it is impossible to quantify without having a process, but I would bet my life on it being bloody expensive.

[Saracen]

It may be expensive, opel. Or it may not. Either way, US costs are immaterial, as the processes are different.

As for it being incumbent on me to show the DP is viable, cost-wise, this all started when wasabi asked how we get rid of people no longer "acceptable", without risking a paedophile spending 20 years in jail then getting out and abusing more kids.

I said, semi-facetiously, short rope, long drop.

And, I think we can safely say that, after that, said paedophile won't abuse kids when they "get out".

As for cost, you seriously expect me to propose an entire legal process, complete with detailed analysis of every step of every appeal, in order to provide costings? Please.

I made NO claims as to what it would cost. In fact, I pointed out, specifically, that without a process, ANY idea of cost was impossible.

My only reference to cost was to dismiss the notion, claimed by you, that US studies of DP costs were relevant. They aren't, because we don't have the US system. For a start, we don't have a written constitution which in itself provides a lot of opportunity for appeals. Nor do we have a system that allows legal filibustering, to anything remotely resembling the US system, where vast numbers of appeals are made, not on the grounds of the remotest chance of success but simply as a delaying tactic, and that is in no small part why the US system is so expensive .... 10, 15 even 20 years of non-stop appeals, many of which take months, even a year or two to go through the process, and sit in court backlogs.


So no, providing costs isn't incumbent on me. We don't and can't know what they will be.

What we do know is that the costs of the US system is not a guide, any more than Saddam's is.

[TooNice]

There are definitely instances where the guilt is absolutely certain. For instance, school shootings. Granted the shooter usually does the job himself in the end, but if apprehended alive, I wouldn't mind using the cost of keeping him alive but locked up to support the family of the victims. Or filling pot holes for that matter.

[wasabi]

Give or take, about £33k per annum to keep him alive. I think he should be punsished but I don't necessarily think he should be killed off - just gotten rid of permanently from our society. How is another matter. Designate an island somewhere as a lifer penal colony and revoke all return citizenship? We need a new Australia.

[Saracen]

Give or take, about £33k per annum to keep him alive. I think he should be punsished but I don't necessarily think he should be killed off - just gotten rid of permanently from our society. How is another matter. Designate an island somewhere as a lifer penal colony and revoke all return citizenship? We need a new Australia.

Is there ANY other way to ensure someone is permanently removed from society? Any way at all?

Even if you find a new Devil's Island, he vould escape, be rescued, or simply be released by a policy change by some new government in 10, 20 years time, or some new court decision aboshing encarcedation as wrong.

The only way to be certain a prisoner doesn't end up back on the streets re-offending is .... well, pretty obvious really.

Whether it's right or not is another matter. There's, to say the least, a divergence of opinion on that .... and I can't see it happening, not in the foreseeable future, if ever. But, can you think of ANY other certain method?

[opel80uk]

It may be expensive, opel. Or it may not. Either way, US costs are immaterial, as the processes are different.

As for it being incumbent on me to show the DP is viable, cost-wise, this all started when wasabi asked how we get rid of people no longer "acceptable", without risking a paedophile spending 20 years in jail then getting out and abusing more kids.

I said, semi-facetiously, short rope, long drop.

And, I think we can safely say that, after that, said paedophile won't abuse kids when they "get out".

Semi- facetiously? So do you actually think that it is an acceptable and viable alternative to what we have, or do you not? Or was it a ‘send him to the moon’ type of answer?

As for cost, you seriously expect me to propose an entire legal process, complete with detailed analysis of every step of every appeal, in order to provide costings? Please.

No, I don’t – that was my turn to be facetious. Of course you can’t, no one can, but again it was you (or at least this is what I took out of it) that seemed to imply that some sort of due process would/could be used for cases where capital punishment was a possibility, that would minimise the risk of miscarriages of justice. What they are, I don’t know, but presumably they, as with costs for murder trials as they are now, they won’t come cheap. Whilst I accept that without knowing what process would be in place it would be impossible to cost, we’ll have to agree to disagree that the US costs are irrelevant. As I said, I think they are the most similar system that uses the DP to ours, and whilst not ‘the same’, I think it is relevant. Far more than using Saddam’s execution.

And another thing. I’ve heard a few people here say along the lines of ‘in some cases we know for certain’, and I think you used the case of Lee Rigby, but how do you, or I for that matter, know for certain what happened unless we were there? Presumably you think you know because of what was presented to you by the media? The fact is, no matter how overwhelming the evidence might seem, unless someone is there, they don’t know ‘for certain’. We could go look at numerous miscarriages of justice where, at the time, there was no doubt over guilt. And that doesn’t touch on mental capacity, etc which are always open to the interpretation of experts. If there was a way so that we would know for certain the guilt of someone, their competency, their soundness of mind etc, then I wouldn’t have a problem with the DP, even if it did cost more than life imprisonment.

But I do agree with you that the killing someone is the only way to ensure for certain that people no longer "acceptable" to society are not ever again in a position to abuse anyone. I think, unless the DP is brought back, the next best thing is to ask how we can minimise that risk. Life without parole is, I think, the best we can do.

[b0redom]

I'm quite surprised with all the replies so far no one has said that by not buying their records, you're actually contributing to the problem of Lost Profits....

(I'll get my coat)....

[opel80uk]

I'm quite surprised with all the replies so far no one has said that by not buying their records, you're actually contributing to the problem of Lost Profits....

(I'll get my coat)....

Now that's definitely a reason to bring back the DP!

[Saracen]

Semi- facetiously? So do you actually think that it is an acceptable and viable alternative to what we have, or do you not? Or was it a ‘send him to the moon’ type of answer?

It was semi-facetious because, while I do support the DP in limited circumstances, I'm far from convinced that it's appropriate for paedophiles. The question asked, that I quoted and answered, was (paraphrasing) "how can we permanently remove ....". Had I said "execute them", then maybe it was an utterly serious suggestion.

It was not an entirely serious suggestion for a pragmatic policy, not least because EU membership precludes it at a fundamental level, so unless/until we leave the EU, or the EU reverses one of it's most fundamental principles, it CAN'T happen, which is why I suggested it in the terms I did, that being "long drop on a short rope". I'd have thought the phrase alone suggested if wasn't entirely a serious proposal, coupled with the virtually insurmountable legal obstacles to doing it, making it semi-facetious.

Perhaps a more serious answer to that "how can we .... " question would have been "we can't". Short of the DP, there isn't a way we can permanently remove these individuals, not with certainty.

[Saracen]

....

No, I don’t – that was my turn to be facetious. Of course you can’t, no one can, but again it was you (or at least this is what I took out of it) that seemed to imply that some sort of due process would/could be used for cases where capital punishment was a possibility, that would minimise the risk of miscarriages of justice. What they are, I don’t know, but presumably they, as with costs for murder trials as they are now, they won’t come cheap. Whilst I accept that without knowing what process would be in place it would be impossible to cost, we’ll have to agree to disagree that the US costs are irrelevant. As I said, I think they are the most similar system that uses the DP to ours, and whilst not ‘the same’, I think it is relevant. Far more than using Saddam’s execution.

And another thing. I’ve heard a few people here say along the lines of ‘in some cases we know for certain’, and I think you used the case of Lee Rigby, but how do you, or I for that matter, know for certain what happened unless we were there? Presumably you think you know because of what was presented to you by the media? The fact is, no matter how overwhelming the evidence might seem, unless someone is there, they don’t know ‘for certain’. We could go look at numerous miscarriages of justice where, at the time, there was no doubt over guilt. And that doesn’t touch on mental capacity, etc which are always open to the interpretation of experts. If there was a way so that we would know for certain the guilt of someone, their competency, their soundness of mind etc, then I wouldn’t have a problem with the DP, even if it did cost more than life imprisonment.

But I do agree with you that the killing someone is the only way to ensure for certain that people no longer "acceptable" to society are not ever again in a position to abuse anyone. I think, unless the DP is brought back, the next best thing is to ask how we can minimise that risk. Life without parole is, I think, the best we can do.

On Lee Rigby, the evidence, the numerous witnesses, and the video footage of the culprits standing there, covered in blood, knife-wielding, and proudly proclaiming their guilt.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that while no doubt the DP would have costs, it need not be anywhere near the league of the US system. For a start, we have to define exactly what costs are attributed to the DP process. For instance, if it takes 5 years to get through the "process", the cost of holding them in prison cannot be included, unless costs are incurred additional to normal LWOP sentences because you hold them on some sort of death row. And why do we need a death row? A standard bhigh security prison, especially for 'special' prisonerz, like sex offenders, ought to do.

Then, there's whatever court processes occurred ONLY in DP cases. The cost of those does need to be included. That, in no small part, is the 'process' I referred to.

So, the first issue is exactly what the criteria when the DP could apply would need to be determined. Personally, I have no problem with it applying to some murders, but .... not all.

I'm not in favour of it being widely used, or generally available, even for murder. But there are cases where, personally, it wouldn't give me any problems at all if it were applied.

If it were ever to be on the cards, I would want it to be, first, only applied where distinctly 'special' circumstances applied, and then, I'd want to see a rigorous DP process applied, on top of the initial criminal trial. If you like, something like the initial trial judge needs to pass a life sentence AND a referal to a DP tribunal. That referral might also, for instance, only be available to the judge if the jury recommend it. Then, that DP tribunal looks separately at both the nature of the offence(s) AND the standard and extent of evidence. That tribunal could, for instance, consists of a panel if Supreme Court judges.

So, cost-wise, the jury have already sat through the entire trial anyway, so that is a major safeguard with no cost element. Then, the trial judge has sat through the trial, so there's a safeguard but again, no cost element. Only the most serious cases would qualify, so the csndidate is already going to be banged up in a very high-grade slammer, so little or no cost there.

What would cost is any 'tribunal' prep, both for prosecution and defence elements, and the tribunal itself.

There are any number of ways this basic setup could be adapted, modified and amended, not to mention the legislation determining exactly when it could be used.

I'm not in favour of large-scale executions, by any means, but there are exceptional cases for which, personally, I'd not lose a moment's sleep if it was used.

Many people are against the DP under any circumstances, either for religious or what they class as moeal reasons. Fair enough, we're all entitled to our opinions. But I'm not against it under any circumstances, but I would want it to be in exceptional cases. And with strict limitations, and requirements.

Clearly, we're not going anywhere near the Saddam end of the cost spectrum. And anything I'd support would have costs. But while I'm no expert on the US system, I have done a fair bit of reading, and the minutiae of the US system beggars belief, in my view.

Without determining exactly how our system, should we ever get one, works then even approximating costs is impossible. What we can put a decent cost on is locking a really, REALLY dangerous individual up for actual life, in the "never ever get out" sense, because that might be 40, 50 or even 60 years or more, together with the typically accelerating health costs of that individual towards the end of what could be many decades behind bars.

Oh, and while suggesting a short rope for the worst paedophiles wasn't entirely a serious suggestion, not least because it isn't going to happen, I don't actually care much if a few get the DP. After what they have done to kids, I wouldn't give a damn. I certainly wouldn't raise so much as an eyelash to prevent it. And on that, I'm utterly serious.

[Saracen]

Now that's definitely a reason to bring back the DP!

On that, at least, we can agree.

[opel80uk]

On Lee Rigby, the evidence, the numerous witnesses, and the video footage of the culprits standing there, covered in blood, knife-wielding, and proudly proclaiming their guilt.

So you (and I for that matter because I too think they are guilty) have chosen to believe the evidence that was presented to us. We feel, if you like, we are as certain as it is possible to be without actually being there that the culprits are guilty. I understand that is how a jury system works, and have no problem with it, but I do have an issue when a life is going to be taken on the basis of that, on effectively what someone else is trying to convince me (or others) to believe. And that doesn’t even take into account any possibility of soundness of mind, mental capacity etc which is always open to interpretation… Again, I don’t believe that this is an issue with the Lee Rigby case, I just quoted that case because it was the one you used.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that while no doubt the DP would have costs, it need not be anywhere near the league of the US system. For a start, we have to define exactly what costs are attributed to the DP process. For instance, if it takes 5 years to get through the "process", the cost of holding them in prison cannot be included, unless costs are incurred additional to normal LWOP sentences because you hold them on some sort of death row. And why do we need a death row? A standard bhigh security prison, especially for 'special' prisonerz, like sex offenders, ought to do.

Then, there's whatever court processes occurred ONLY in DP cases. The cost of those does need to be included. That, in no small part, is the 'process' I referred to.

So, the first issue is exactly what the criteria when the DP could apply would need to be determined. Personally, I have no problem with it applying to some murders, but .... not all.

I'm not in favour of it being widely used, or generally available, even for murder. But there are cases where, personally, it wouldn't give me any problems at all if it were applied.

If it were ever to be on the cards, I would want it to be, first, only applied where distinctly 'special' circumstances applied, and then, I'd want to see a rigorous DP process applied, on top of the initial criminal trial. If you like, something like the initial trial judge needs to pass a life sentence AND a referal to a DP tribunal. That referral might also, for instance, only be available to the judge if the jury recommend it. Then, that DP tribunal looks separately at both the nature of the offence(s) AND the standard and extent of evidence. That tribunal could, for instance, consists of a panel if Supreme Court judges.

So, cost-wise, the jury have already sat through the entire trial anyway, so that is a major safeguard with no cost element. Then, the trial judge has sat through the trial, so there's a safeguard but again, no cost element. Only the most serious cases would qualify, so the csndidate is already going to be banged up in a very high-grade slammer, so little or no cost there.

What would cost is any 'tribunal' prep, both for prosecution and defence elements, and the tribunal itself.

There are any number of ways this basic setup could be adapted, modified and amended, not to mention the legislation determining exactly when it could be used.

I'm not in favour of large-scale executions, by any means, but there are exceptional cases for which, personally, I'd not lose a moment's sleep if it was used.

Many people are against the DP under any circumstances, either for religious or what they class as moeal reasons. Fair enough, we're all entitled to our opinions. But I'm not against it under any circumstances, but I would want it to be in exceptional cases. And with strict limitations, and requirements.

Clearly, we're not going anywhere near the Saddam end of the cost spectrum. And anything I'd support would have costs. But while I'm no expert on the US system, I have done a fair bit of reading, and the minutiae of the US system beggars belief, in my view.

Without determining exactly how our system, should we ever get one, works then even approximating costs is impossible. What we can put a decent cost on is locking a really, REALLY dangerous individual up for actual life, in the "never ever get out" sense, because that might be 40, 50 or even 60 years or more, together with the typically accelerating health costs of that individual towards the end of what could be many decades behind bars.

Oh, and while suggesting a short rope for the worst paedophiles wasn't entirely a serious suggestion, not least because it isn't going to happen, I don't actually care much if a few get the DP. After what they have done to kids, I wouldn't give a damn. I certainly wouldn't raise so much as an eyelash to prevent it. And on that, I'm utterly serious.

I do agree with a lot of what you said, but I’m of the opinion that no matter how robust the process that is in place is, and no matter how far you go to ensure that there are no miscarriages of justice, there is ALWAYS that possibility, and no system of process can ever remove the fallibility that exits in every justice system. The Police and the judicial system are not immune from political interference and or corruption and, whilst I honestly believe it to be one of the finest in the world, there are numerous examples of where it has let people down. If you accept that there is always that possibility of miscarriages, regardless of how minimised it may be, then I ask you to answer the following question – Is the possibility, no matter how small, of executing innocent persons a price worth paying to see certain criminals given the DP? That would be an emphatic no from me.

But don’t misunderstand me. I have kids, and the thought of anyone doing those kinds of things to them is unimaginable; I don’t doubt that I could kill the culprits myself. So if you had a crystal ball, and we could know what had happened in the same way eyewitnesses, victims or the perpetrators do, then I too wouldn’t care less if they swung. And I would even think that the cost, whatever it may be & regardless of whether it was more or less than life imprisonment, would be money well spent. But we don’t have a crystal ball, and that makes it hard to support, especially when it comes at such a potentially high (non-monetary) price.

[Saracen]

Well, I'd say it's not quite how the jury system works.

This is a serious question, not an attempt to minimise your position (which I understand, by the way) .... have you ever sat on a jury?

I have, and it affected my understanding of the position, when you just describe it in words. I mean, we can all understand the principle of "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". But I found myself sitting there, considering ALL aspects of the evidence, including contradicting presenrations of it. I found myself in a situation where there was no one, single, categoric overwhlemingly absolute proof of guilt. But, when you put all the pieces together, then and only then, like a jigsaw puzzle, does a picture emerge.

And that is when each, individual member of the jury has to determine if they, 8ersonally, are convinced beyond reasonable doubt, which includes deciding where "reasonable" is.

And my only answer to that thorny question is .... beyond balance of probability but short of 100% utter factual certainty.

So, it comes down to whether my conscience will allow me to vote 'guilty' in the sure and certain knowledge that my vote, my actual individual decision, mught be the one that is sufficient to cross the line from "presumed innocent" to guilty, and thus it might be MY vote that sends the accused to prison for a substantial number of years. Whatever the judge will accept, be it unanimous or majority (and I've been in both situations), am I, personally, prepared to face that if enough others have already voted guilty, MY vote might be the one that settles that person's fate, that determines whether they go home to their family, or to prison for years.

And I, and any reasonable person, would find that a very onerous duty. I'm not sure anyone can really understand that, at an emotional level, unless they've been there. It is a substantial weight to carry around.

So, back to your qusstion about certainty in the DP, and Lee Rigby.

Am I satisfied his killers are who they appear to be? Yes. Would I currently, personally, be orepared to either make the decision to execute, or send them to jail? No, because I've seen TV documentaries and news reports, not court-standard evidence, including that from the defence.

However, if I had sat on the jury, I would be prepared to vote guilty, knowing that it might be MY vote, and mine alone, that tipped the balance, even if the result was execution IF, and I heavily stress IF I was satisfied of guilt sufficiently to be prepared to carry that weight.

But as for absolute, beyond any conceivable doubt?

I can't be absolutely certain of anything. I think I'm alive, and I think I'm typing on a tablet, pisting ob HEXUS, but I can't be absolutely certain. Why? Because, given my understanding of what I am, everything is the result of a sort of bio-electrical processing system creating images of what's going on around me, based entirely on a series of sensory inputs and what I believe is the reality I think I live in.

But I am limited by that perception of reality, and by what my brain creates out of the mass of sensory inputs it gets. I might be imagining everything, or am plugged into a Matrix-type VR world, and this opel bloke I'm arguing with might be a figment of my imagination, or the Admin of that Matrix world.

All told, though, I'll proceed on the basis that if it walks like a duck, etc, and I'll assume things are what they seem.

So, given conspiracies, police malfeasance, etc, is it possible to be absolutely, utterly certain of anything? No. So it comes down to whether I'm certain enough to vote guilty, knowing that my vote might be the one that determines life or death, just as in the case I did sit on, it might have determined prison or not.

Of course, there's 11 others, so the safeguard is that they all need to be sufficiently certain, too. One of the aspects of "process", for instance, could and probably should be that a unanimous verdict was required .... though that opens up the possibility that one person could block that, not because of lack of certainty of guilt but because of moral or religious objections.

[opel80uk]

Well, I'd say it's not quite how the jury system works.

This is a serious question, not an attempt to minimise your position (which I understand, by the way) .... have you ever sat on a jury?

I have, and it affected my understanding of the position, when you just describe it in words. I mean, we can all understand the principle of "guilty beyond reasonable doubt". But I found myself sitting there, considering ALL aspects of the evidence, including contradicting presenrations of it. I found myself in a situation where there was no one, single, categoric overwhlemingly absolute proof of guilt. But, when you put all the pieces together, then and only then, like a jigsaw puzzle, does a picture emerge.

And that is when each, individual member of the jury has to determine if they, 8ersonally, are convinced beyond reasonable doubt, which includes deciding where "reasonable" is.

And my only answer to that thorny question is .... beyond balance of probability but short of 100% utter factual certainty.

So, it comes down to whether my conscience will allow me to vote 'guilty' in the sure and certain knowledge that my vote, my actual individual decision, mught be the one that is sufficient to cross the line from "presumed innocent" to guilty, and thus it might be MY vote that sends the accused to prison for a substantial number of years. Whatever the judge will accept, be it unanimous or majority (and I've been in both situations), am I, personally, prepared to face that if enough others have already voted guilty, MY vote might be the one that settles that person's fate, that determines whether they go home to their family, or to prison for years.

And I, and any reasonable person, would find that a very onerous duty. I'm not sure anyone can really understand that, at an emotional level, unless they've been there. It is a substantial weight to carry around.

So, back to your qusstion about certainty in the DP, and Lee Rigby.

Am I satisfied his killers are who they appear to be? Yes. Would I currently, personally, be orepared to either make the decision to execute, or send them to jail? No, because I've seen TV documentaries and news reports, not court-standard evidence, including that from the defence.

However, if I had sat on the jury, I would be prepared to vote guilty, knowing that it might be MY vote, and mine alone, that tipped the balance, even if the result was execution IF, and I heavily stress IF I was satisfied of guilt sufficiently to be prepared to carry that weight.

But as for absolute, beyond any conceivable doubt?

I can't be absolutely certain of anything. I think I'm alive, and I think I'm typing on a tablet, pisting ob HEXUS, but I can't be absolutely certain. Why? Because, given my understanding of what I am, everything is the result of a sort of bio-electrical processing system creating images of what's going on around me, based entirely on a series of sensory inputs and what I believe is the reality I think I live in.

But I am limited by that perception of reality, and by what my brain creates out of the mass of sensory inputs it gets. I might be imagining everything, or am plugged into a Matrix-type VR world, and this opel bloke I'm arguing with might be a figment of my imagination, or the Admin of that Matrix world.

All told, though, I'll proceed on the basis that if it walks like a duck, etc, and I'll assume things are what they seem.

So, given conspiracies, police malfeasance, etc, is it possible to be absolutely, utterly certain of anything? No. So it comes down to whether I'm certain enough to vote guilty, knowing that my vote might be the one that determines life or death, just as in the case I did sit on, it might have determined prison or not.

Of course, there's 11 others, so the safeguard is that they all need to be sufficiently certain, too. One of the aspects of "process", for instance, could and probably should be that a unanimous verdict was required .... though that opens up the possibility that one person could block that, not because of lack of certainty of guilt but because of moral or religious objections.

I enjoyed reading that post. Very thought provoking.

I have sat on a jury, but it was a long time ago, the stakes were very low, and in fact the judge directed us to acquit which we did, but I do understand the point you are making regarding what a jury does. The way I described it was, at best crude, but ultimately the evidence (certainly as was in the case I sat in on) was presented in, by both sides, a partisan way. That the jury must weigh it all up, piece it together etc, and make a decision based on that evidence does in itself bring to the fore the limitations of ours (or of any) legal system. That’s why you have some people being able to charge what they like to represent others in court – it doesn’t necessarily change the evidence, but does change how it’s presented and can be the difference between someone being found guilty or innocent.

With regards to you willing to vote guilty if you were satisfied of guilt sufficiently to be prepared to carry that weight, I respect that, but that doesn’t actually answer the question I asked, because you would not being sitting on every jury, in every case, and so will never know the evidence presented in all cases. I’m gonna repeat the original question, but don’t think I’m haranguing you, or trying to push you into a corner, because I’m not. Rather I’m genuinely interested in your answer because I think it fundamental to any DP argument, for or against. I suppose the question can be broken down into 2 parts:

1) Do you think there is any system or process that can be put in place that would remove entirely the possibility of miscarriages of justice?
2) If no to 1, it leads me to ask is the possibility, no matter how small, of executing innocent persons a price worth paying to see certain criminals, in very certain circumstances, given the DP?

The question is more general, and what you want for society, rather than an individual case in which you are sitting on.


And apologies for going off topic. And interesting article on the original point was in the Telegraph a couple of days ago:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/an...f-the-picture/