Death Penalty. Yes or No

[DavidM]

"Justice moves a lot faster in the future. Now that they've abolished Lawyers"
Back to the Future Part II

The legal system is supposed to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

If only it would actually work like that instead of working for the criminals.

[Salazaar]

If only it would actually work like that instead of working for the criminals.

Just to play devil's advocate here (oooh the irony ), there is the theory that they're only criminals if they've actually been convicted...

[DavidM]

... in theory.

[Salazaar]

Maybe we should go over to the Scottish system and allow courts to deliver unproven verdicts rather than just not guilty.

[Lucio]

Whilst previously been in favour of the death penalty (after something my dad did that deserved it IMO), I can't see how you could protect society from the occasional miscarriage of justice.

I think the best arguement I've been given is if you are in favour, could you, in all honesty say you're willing to be the one cock up in a million that's put to death incorrectly...


Personally, I'd rather the money be spent in making ways for prisoners to be more useful to society. For example, lifers could be used as cheap labour for a variety of tasks.

[Saracen]

Maybe we should go over to the Scottish system and allow courts to deliver unproven verdicts rather than just not guilty.

Do we want to establish that principle, though?

Is it not better for the burden of proof to be put on the state? After all, it has all the investigative resources, the money and the people. If you go to using unproven the implication is that the defence has to satisfy the jury that the accused is actually innocent, and if you can't achieve that, you'll emerge from the trial with the distinct impression in people's minds that you're guilty, but they just couldn't prove it. At least at the moment, there's a presumption of innocence.

But it's a fine line to tread between the two, especially as it all depends on how sure you need to be reach a verdict that says the case is proven, either way. Tough "reasonable doubt" is somewhat in disfavour these days, whether you apply that standard or the alternative "sure", it all comes down to how each and every jury defines that standard. It is, after all, quite possible for a juror to listen to evidence, perhaps accept testimony as credible (when it's a pack of lies), and convict on the basis of being "sure" .... and still be factually wrong.

It all comes down to how you want to preload the balance on the scales of justice. The current system says you're legally innocent, whether you actually did it or not, until a court can prove otherwise.

Suppose, Salazaar, you're innocent, but get accused of a particularly heinous crime, say rape of kiddie-fiddling. You're taken to court and the prosecution can't prove, to the necessary standard, that you're guilty. Do you really want to be in the position of having to prove, to the required standard, that you didn't do it in order to avoid getting stuck with an "unproven" verdict, which most people will probably take to mean that you did it but can't be proven to have done so. Remember, I said you were actually innocent in this case. Do you want to have to prove it?

One thing is absolutely certain. Until and unless we ever reach the situation where we can demonstrate with incontrovertible certainty, 100% of the time, what the truth of a situation is (such as a time machine so the jury can go watch the actual events unfold), whatever system we have for holding trials is going to have an element of doubt in a good many cases. And I'm not holding my breath, because I don't believe such certainty is or ever will be possible.

So in the meantime, if we have the death penalty, the implication is that there's always a chance that you execute an innocent person. You can design systems that minimise that risk, you can only apply it to cases where the evidence seems overwhelming, and you can limit the DP to only the worst of murders, but ultimately, there's a risk of it going wrong.

Implicit in support for the death penalty is that you accept that that risk, however small, exists. Also implicit in support for the death penalty is acceptance that any of us could potentially, as Lucio says, be on the receiving end of that miscarriage of justice. So you can't really support the DP unless you're personally prepared to accept that risk.

[Salazaar]

I wasn't trying to imply that we should or should not actually have such a system, meerly that it's an option, with all the pros and cons that come with it.

I still can't agree with any argument which leads to a civilised nation implementing a death sentence though.

[Mossy]

I think they should bring back stoning and also public hanging forget leathal injection some people need to be humiliated.

[DavidM]

some people need to be humiliated.

Shame Jeremy Beadle is no longer with us

[Saracen]

...

I still can't agree with any argument which leads to a civilised nation implementing a death sentence though.

Do we live in a civilised society, though?

I think not.

[Mossy]

Do we live in a civilised society, though?

I think not.

True, treat then with the same respect they treat their victims /NONE

eye for an eye live by the sword die by it I say!

Sexual preditors should get the chop.. Why is this country so lenient?

Why is the Law taylored to protect the criminals rather than protecting the victims no wonder the current punishment does not deter them questions which we all would like answering...

[Saracen]

Deterrence is a strange subject, though, Paul.

Firstly, ANY sentence is only a deterrent if the offender thinks he or she will get caught. I'd bet there'd be a LOT less people drink-driving, or using their phone while driving, if they thought the chances of being caught were high. And the offending rates would be at or close to 0% if the chance of being caught and punished were 100%.

Secondly, not all offences fall into the category where people are planning to offend, so absolutely no sentence would be a deterrent. For example, a fight that develops into something where someone ends up dead. The odds are, neither party started out intending to get into a fight, let alone kill or die. If you are reacting rather than thinking, deterrence probably doesn't cross your mind.

And I'm not convinced that killers like the Ipswich killer, Steve Wright, were considering that they might get caught, or cared what happened if they were. So in that case, no matter whether it's life in prison or the DP, I can't believe it would have been a deterrent .... or that the sentence would make much difference.

Of course, we'll never know how many people have been deterred from killing by the potential punishment, by virtue of the fact that if they were deterred, they didn't kill and so we'll never know.

[Blitzen]

You cant go around killing people. It makes us as bad as the criminal.

What SHOULD happen though is criminal shouldnt be split in jail according to the crime they commited.

Lets start putting the child abusers/rapists/child murderers in with the bank robbers/football hooilgans/gangsters and see how long they last.

They will soon be finished off by those lot and i GUARANTEE they will never want to offend again if they get out of jail.

A hardened criminal is a millions miles away from a nonce.

[Salazaar]

Do we live in a civilised society, though?

I think not.

Possibly not, but the only way to achieve it is by setting the standards... if not we've got no hope at all.

[Salazaar]

Of course, we'll never know how many people have been deterred from killing by the potential punishment, by virtue of the fact that if they were deterred, they didn't kill and so we'll never know.

Interesting point, that. Kill a killer and you've guaranteed that he'll never kill again, you're also guaranteed that there's no chance of rehabilitation or attonement what so ever...

[Sinizter]

Kill a killer and be done with it. I have no problems with that .... I dont think society is particularly civilised anyway, everyone's mostly out for themselves pretty much the same since the species began.

And in this case the "civilisation" referred to seems to indicate other people's opinions inflicted on me - more of the stuff that I can do very well without.