Capital Punishment

[Big RICHARD]

Thanks Russ.....

[Doctor.Bob]

I oppose Capital Punishment.

1) There are too many cases of people being wrongly convicted

2) Fact: It is more expensive to keep someone on death row until their appeals process is exhausted & the execute them than it is to keep them in prison for life (where life means life)

[perryh73]

Originally posted by Doctor.Bob
I oppose Capital Punishment.

1) There are too many cases of people being wrongly convicted

2) Fact: It is more expensive to keep someone on death row until their appeals process is exhausted & the execute them than it is to keep them in prison for life (where life means life)

I agree. If killed as a death penalty and then found that the conviction is unsafe...cant bring em back can you?

Perry.

[skirkham]

I wouldnt say Robbery is necessarly a lesser crime when it involves very large sums of money

[homerhassall]

I'm sick of the do-gooders and bleeding heart liberals we real need to toughen up the criminal justice system to deal with some oif the filth that's walking about and laughing at the law.

A life for a life is what you should expect!!

And while i'm on a rant if you are paroled early from your first session behind bars why is it not automatic that if you re-offend the first thing you do is serve the remainder of your original sentance before starting whatever you get for the 2nd offence (with of course no parole on that one for starters). I for one am sick of people getting stupidly low sentences and then only serving half of that anyway.

[steve threlfall]

Originally posted by perryh73
I agree. If killed as a death penalty and then found that the conviction is unsafe...cant bring em back can you?

Perry.

To true. If we remember the supposed 'killers' of carl bridgewater- surely they would have been executed and of course they were found innocent and released not so long ago

[Saracen]

Originally posted by Doctor.Bob
I oppose Capital Punishment.

1) There are too many cases of people being wrongly convicted

2) Fact: It is more expensive to keep someone on death row until their appeals process is exhausted & the execute them than it is to keep them in prison for life (where life means life)

Point 1 is hard to disagree with, but not necessarily germane to the question of whether there should be a death penalty available as a sentencing option to a judge.

Point number 2) very definitely IS arguable. It is, as Beeny pointed out, a fact and a rather lamentable one but..... need not be the case here.

Even in the US, the point over cost can be debated. For a start, some of the appeals process is common to death penalty and non-death penalty cases and would occur whether the case was a death penalty one or not. Those costs ought to be excluded from the calculation. But are they? Secondly, the US Judicial system is (IMHO) screwy at the best of times and perhaps nowhere more so than in death penalty cases. It suffers, among other things, from campaigners that are determined to halt all executions, on moral, religious or principled grounds, whether there is any doubt about the guilt of the condemned or not. And they will use any available loophole and technicality to prevent sentence being carried out, or failing that, delay it as far as possible. That is responsible for a fair bit of the cost.

I do not, personally, endorse the death penalty as implemented in the US. I do not necessarily support all examples of when and why it is imposed, and I certainly don't support the rather almost never-ending appeals process. I've followed some of these appeals, and many of them are simply blocking manoeuvres by people determined to thwart the clear intent of due process by any shenanigans they can. Many of the appeals are frivolous, and many/most get slung out .... but it still all takes time. And costs money.

The death penalty need not cost more than keeping someone in jail for the rest of their lives, and indeed, it is debatable whether it does. It depends too much on the individual circumstances of the condemned, and on whose figures you believe, and on exactly what basis those figures are compiled.

For instance, it costs a lot more to keep a 20-year old person in jail permanently than it does a 70-year old, for obvious reasons.

Also, exactly what to do you include in those costs? The older you get, the more expensive it gets to keep someone in jail. For a start, health deteriorates and medical needs increase. Or do we deprive condemned people of medical treatment? And what medical treatment do they get and what is denied them? Perhaps a hip replacement?

Well, in this country, there is a waiting list for that kind of thing. I wouldn't want to see my granny denied such treatment because some scumbag child-killing maniac was a higher "clinical priority".

Anyway, the cost argument depends entirely on the system of justice in place and we don't (thank goodness) have the American system so basing the cost argument on US figures is a meaningless argument. If the "No" camp wish to quote the costs of following the US legal system as an argument against, I could refer to Saddam Hussein's legal system as an example of the cost of the death penalty. What does a 9mm bullet cost these days?

We don't have either legal system (again, thank goodness) so what it costs in either country is irrelevant to what our system, if we had one, would cost here.

Besides, whether it costs more or not is a rather tacky way to decide on the desirability, or otherwise, of the death penalty. Personally, though, I believe we could come up with a system which would be capable of both applying justice, and saving a lot of money. Saving the money is a nice by-product of my stance, but certainly not a reason for it.

I think the first thing to be decided is whether each of us would support the death penalty is we knew, absolutely knew, incontrovertibly and without a shadow of a doubt, that the offender was guilty. Say, guilty of multiple child murders. Assume that you not only have the defendant’s freely given confession, repeated in court and a guilty plea, but that the offender video-taped his crimes (which is not at all unlikely) and that the tapes were recovered and can be given in evidence.

Also assume, for arguments sake that the offender set out to commit these acts with deliberate intent, and is clinically and legally sane.

Do you, under those circumstances, consider that there is a case for the offender to be executed?

Some people, quite a lot probably, will answer "no" even to that. The reasons .... religious maybe. Personal morals or standards, maybe.

If your stance in circumstances like these is against the death penalty, then it is a belief on principle and considerations of potential miscarriages of justice, the cost, and so forth are immaterial.

If that is your stance, then I can't tell you that you're wrong, but I will tell you that I disagree with you. And leave it there.

If the answer is that, in those kinds of circumstances, the answer is "Yes", then we agree that the death penalty is OK in principle, but that there are practical difficulties in the application. And I'll leave that to another post

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by Saracen
[Extended waffling on ]

Wow! What a post! Much of that I agree with.......

What do you feel in the circumstances of the offender videoing their multiple child murder? Execute or not?

[Saracen]

Originally posted by Big RICHARD
What do you feel in the circumstances of the offender videoing their multiple child murder? Execute or not?

If the circumstances were as described and without mitigating factors, yes, I have no problem with the death penalty.

Society's resources are limited. In such circumstances, where guilt is unequivocal, I feel that such resources are better devoted to providing health services, support for the genuinely needy, maybe even rehabilitation for those in prison that ARE capable of redemption. Consistent and coherent drug treatment programs for addicts that are imprisoned for committing crimes and follow-up for such people when released, for instance. There are many things such funds could, IMHO, be better spent on. I'd rather see one drug addict/burglar given the support they need to get off and stay off the drugs, than a multiple child killer (as hypothesised) kept in jail for decades at a cost to the taxpayer that would no doubt run into hundreds of thousands, and quite possibly into the millions.

Someone that has exhibited the tendencies and committed the acts I refer to should never, in my view, be released back into society. It is simply too much of a chance that they will reoffend and some other innocent will pay the price of release with their life. Convincing a panel of doctors or prison administrators that you are not a risk is not, in my view, enough to justify releasing such a person. The risk is too great and the price that will be paid if that [panel is wrong is simply too high. If you abuse societies trust to THAT degree, then you lose ALL rights to further trust, PERMANENTLY.

That leaves me in the position of supporting the death penalty in principle, in the right circumstances. The problem is .... where do you draw the line?

[Saracen]

Originally posted by steve threlfall
To true. If we remember the supposed 'killers' of carl bridgewater- surely they would have been executed and of course they were found innocent and released not so long ago

They weren't found innocent, the conviction was overturned on the basis that it was unsafe.

There is a fine distinction. There is a presumption of innocence, but you are not found innocent of anything by any court in this country. You are found either guilty or not guilty. Not guilty might mean that you didn't do it, but it equally well might mean that you did it, but the authorities were unable to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt as THAT is the hurdle thay have to leap.

I doubt we will ever know whether the "Bridgewater Four" actually killed Carl or not, but the fact that the conviction was quashed (and rightly so) does NOT mean that the people that were jailed did not actually kill him.

A major part of the problem in the Bridgewater case was that the Police apparently fabricated a statement from Hickey. Well, the police shouldn't do that, I hear people say, and I totally agree BUT ..... consider that there may be occasions that the police KNOW they have the right man, but can't prove it in court. Why can't they prove it? Maybe because some of the evidence was tainted in some procedural way that will proclude it from being presented in court. A technical fault. So MAYBE the police KNEW they had the right men, and the fabricated statement was a desperate ploy to prevent the men they KNEW had killed poor little Carl in cold blood escaping justice. Can you imagine the frustration of being aware of such evidence, and knowing that the jury will never get to see it?

Don't get me wrong, I do NOT condone police fabricating evidence any any circumstances. But there are circumstances under which I can understand why it might happen.

As for whether they would "surely" have been executed, well, that depends on the exact way any death penalty system was set up and implemented. It could, for instance, be argued that there was no premeditation in this particular case. Events overtook burglars caught in the act. If premeditation was a prerequisite for the death penalty, then it would not have been a death penalty case.

In saying they would surely have been executed, you're making assumptions about if and when the death penalty would be an option - and even then, it could be set up so that it was an option but not mandatory in any circumstance. It could, for instance, require a death penalty verdict from a jury AND the agreement of the trial judge. It could be that the only power available to a trial judge and/or the jury was to REFER the case, on conviction, to a death penalty panel - which would be a kind of automatic appeal, but for the sentence only, where the panel could either confirm the sentence after a judicial review, or deny it and it automatically dropped back to a life sentence.

Too often, this debate rests on using the US system as an example and, to my mind, it is not a good example. Even if we had the death penalty, it does not have to be implemented in that way. Laws are man-made things. We can implement them however we like, providing they fit within the framework of superior law.

One final point. As I understand it, even if the UK did decide to change its laws to permit the death penalty, it is not going to work because EU law is superior to both UK law and the UK Parliament on this issue (and many others), and EU law precludes the death penalty. So unless that EU law changed, any death penalty sentence in this country would end up getting referred to European courts and thrown out.

It is, therefore, an academic argument anyway.

[sexeh]

Originally posted by Russ
i think personally, at birth ALL babies should be blood tested so they have a record of everyones DNA. It may be a Big Bro is watching thing, but if you do nothing wrong, what do you have to phear. Having DNA evidence at the scene of a murder is one thing, finding somebody who matches it is a different matter, this way they could work there way thre witnesses alot faster, as just cuase your DNA is there, dont mean you did anythin wrong. what you think?

this would be morally wrong. it would be taking away the childs human rights before it even has a say in how they want to live their life. "cuase your DNA is there, dont mean you did anythin wrong..." exacly !

[nichomach]

They weren't found innocent, the conviction was overturned on the basis that it was unsafe. There is a fine distinction. There is a presumption of innocence, but you are not found innocent of anything by any court in this country. You are found either guilty or not guilty. Not guilty might mean that you didn't do it, but it equally well might mean that you did it, but the authorities were unable to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt as THAT is the hurdle thay have to leap. I doubt we will ever know whether the "Bridgewater Four" actually killed Carl or not, but the fact that the conviction was quashed (and rightly so) does NOT mean that the people that were jailed did not actually kill him. A major part of the problem in the Bridgewater case was that the Police apparently fabricated a statement from Hickey. Well, the police shouldn't do that, I hear people say, and I totally agree BUT ..... consider that there may be occasions that the police KNOW they have the right man, but can't prove it in court. Why can't they prove it? Maybe because some of the evidence was tainted in some procedural way that will proclude it from being presented in court. A technical fault. So MAYBE the police KNEW they had the right men, and the fabricated statement was a desperate ploy to prevent the men they KNEW had killed poor little Carl in cold blood escaping justice. Can you imagine the frustration of being aware of such evidence, and knowing that the jury will never get to see it?

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous - the police in this case not only fabricated a statement from one of the accused but used it to extract a confession in exchange for reduction of charges from another. They had no forensic evidence, no witness statements, nothing except fabricated statements or statements obtained (and rapidly withdrawn) through deception and browbeating. Exactly how would they know they'd "got the right man"? My understanding was that the police frowned on the use of clairvoyants. Just like in the Kiszko case, they were under pressure to get results, so they rounded up the usual suspects and then used deception, browbeating and outright forgery to fabricate the "evidence" they wanted. I am sick and tired of hearing the old "they got off on a technicality...we knew we'd got the right man but we just needed the evidence" cr@p. If you haven't got the evidence then you DON'T know you've got the right man, in fact you don't know squat. That's why it's evidence. And as far as the "well, they MIGHT have done it..." stuff, well, yes, but then so might Mickey frickin' Mouse for all the genuine evidence that the police collected.

[VladTheImpaler]

What do you feel in the circumstances of the offender videoing their multiple child murder? Execute or not?

Why do so many make the distinction between a child killer or maybe a police killer as opposed to an 'ordinary' killer. I have been to many debates where this distinction has been used as a basis for capital punishment. Execution for child murderers only.

Is there something special about killing a child? Something more special about their life than someone else, maybe a pensioner or perhaps a lowlife druggie or a prostitute? (I am sure many remember the original 'street cleaner' attitude to Peter Sutcliffe when he only killed Pros. For some reason it changed somewhat after he started killing more 'worthy' women). Perhaps that is why many of we Westerners are happy to eat non-cute cows and pigs but find the thought of killing and eating a cute fluffy cat for instance to be barbaric.

Child or prostitute, soldier, policeman, druggie, black, yellow, white, brown, christian, muslim, jew, gypsy, homosexual; a life is a life. They are all special and no-one ever has the moral right to take it away, not an individual, not the state, not the rule of law.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by nichomach
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous - the police in this case not only fabricated a statement from one of the accused but used it to extract a confession in exchange for reduction of charges from another. They had no forensic evidence, no witness statements, nothing except fabricated statements or statements obtained (and rapidly withdrawn) through deception and browbeating. Exactly how would they know they'd "got the right man"? My understanding was that the police frowned on the use of clairvoyants. Just like in the Kiszko case, they were under pressure to get results, so they rounded up the usual suspects and then used deception, browbeating and outright forgery to fabricate the "evidence" they wanted. I am sick and tired of hearing the old "they got off on a technicality...we knew we'd got the right man but we just needed the evidence" cr@p. If you haven't got the evidence then you DON'T know you've got the right man, in fact you don't know squat. That's why it's evidence. And as far as the "well, they MIGHT have done it..." stuff, well, yes, but then so might Mickey frickin' Mouse for all the genuine evidence that the police collected.

It is not ridiculous. As I explained in that post, there are often situations where the police have evidence, but for various technical reasons it is not able to be PRESENTED in court. So it is quite possible that they DO know they've got the right man, but can't prove it IN COURT. Whether that happened in this case I have no idea and, unless you were on the inside of the investigation, neither do you.

At no point did I hint hint at clairvoyants, for pities sake. It is a simple FACT that the standards the prosecution have to reach to achieve conviction are quite high ... and rightly so. It is a simple FACT that this results in the guilty being acquitted in some trials. That is lamentable, but the price you pay for lowering the bar the prosecution have to jump in order to get more guilty in jail is that you would get more innocent people in jail too. Whether that is a price worth paying is perhaps another thread.

Do you have access to the police files to know for sure what evidence they had but, for procedural reasons, were not allowed to present?

I'm sure, as you say, the police were under pressure to get evidence, and I'm sure they also used methods that are not justifable to get one. I said that in the post you quoted from. BUT .... none of that necessarily means that they didn't have the right people. We simply DON'T KNOW. And neither, as I pointed out, does the overturning of the conviction say ANYTHING about whether the real killers had been convicted and were being released. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, I have not expressed an opinion on that either way. Quashing the conviction was the right thing to do - I haven't disputed that. But it was not quashed because evidence had come to light that proved someone ELSE did it, simply that the evidence used to convict Hickey et al was not safe. We don't, and in all probability, now never will, know who killed poor Carl.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by VladTheImpaler
They are all special and no-one ever has the moral right to take it away, not an individual, not the state, not the rule of law.

That's an opinion but, as it happens, one I flat-out disagree with. I think there ARE moral rights to take a life - and the obvious one is where taking the life of a murderer would save the lives of other innocents.

[Knoxville]

Well after reading all the way through the thread and through many long posts by saracen I'm gonna add my opinion.

In some cases the death penalty is justice. Moira Hindley and Ian Brady for instance should have been executed, there was no shred of doubt that they'd done these sick things and specualtion that they could have murdered more that the authorities don't know about, life is to good for these kinda people, in situations like that they should be killed........no question about it imo.

The death penalty should only apply to cases like that. Now, earlier i can't remember if it was russ or skii said "2 wrongs don't make a right". Hypothetically tommorow my wife gets beaten and raped by 2 guys, me finding out who they are and going and beating them within an inch of they're lives would legally be wrong. But it would be justice, they would pay for what they'd done directly, the consequences of they're actions would be far more real.

If everyone that did something like that had the crap kicked outta them and didn't get put through our legal system then the consequences would be more identifiable.

Wether that is legal or not it is justice for the person who the crime was comitted against and they're loved ones. These are the people that our legal system tries to help by sending people away to prison when what the person probably wants is to be left in a room with no windows with them baseball bat in hand.

I know i'd far rather get some kind of revenge on anyone that did something to me than have them sent off to prison.