This is why we must never bring back the death sentence...

[sstein]

hairykrishna said:

thehawk said:

I totally disagree. The odd innocent life is worth the sacrifice in comparison to the potential thousands of scumbags that could be removed. However under my system this man wouldn't have been executed because I would impose the death penalty only in case where it can be proven without doubt that the person had done it and only in certain crimes, even certain degrees of those crimes.

One thing I forgot to say on the other thread about Britains decline is that I also think a large part of that is due to us becoming weak as a society, this is an example. It will probably be our downfall in the end.

The whole idea of finding people guilty is that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that they did it. If there's doubt why are they going to prison?

What's the point of the death penalty anyway? It doesn't seem to work as a deterrent any better than prison. Plus, in my opinion, as soon as an innocent person is killed you're no better than the criminals.

Absolutely.

The only reason you would have a death penalty is to act as a detterent. I can't see how it does, countries with the death penalty still have crime. People see it as a magic silver bullet and it just wouldn't be. How many of the most horrific crimes happen after the criminal has sat down and assessed his chances of 1) being caught and 2) possible repercussions and offset that against what he would gain by commiting the crime. Very little I would image, they just aren't in this frame of mind. I don't think much murderers would stop and decide not to carry out the crime for fear of the death penalty.

That means the death penalty isn't a deterrent now, it's revenge. It's certainly not the job of our criminal justice system to carry out revenge, no matter how much the peasants outside are baying for blood!

And I agree about sentencing an innocent person to death, that would be just horrific for the state to order the killing of an innocent man. That's something that should never be allowed to happen. I would rather have the odd criminal going free than to ever have one innocent person killed by the death penalty. Before anyone asks, "oh would you still feel that way if it was your family". The answer is yes, I think it's a risk (a very small one) that we all have to take. But then I don't buy into hype from the media that would seem to want to make you believe their is a knife wielding murderer / paedophile / terrorist lurking around every corner.

[thehawk]

pacey_sot said:

hairykrishna said:

thehawk said:

I totally disagree. The odd innocent life is worth the sacrifice in comparison to the potential thousands of scumbags that could be removed. However under my system this man wouldn't have been executed because I would impose the death penalty only in case where it can be proven without doubt that the person had done it and only in certain crimes, even certain degrees of those crimes.

One thing I forgot to say on the other thread about Britains decline is that I also think a large part of that is due to us becoming weak as a society, this is an example. It will probably be our downfall in the end.

The whole idea of finding people guilty is that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that they did it. If there's doubt why are they going to prison?

What's the point of the death penalty anyway? It doesn't seem to work as a deterrent any better than prison. Plus, in my opinion, as soon as an innocent person is killed you're no better than the criminals.

I am with you on this, despite the majority of PH's right-wing not being

But I do still think the death penalty makes some sort of sense, not morally no, but financially it'd save us a fortune, and by saving money on prisons we can redistribute the funds to help contributing members of society (although it'd surely go on benefits) but yeah, the problem is definitely doubt, even DNA evidence could be planted by the right person, or a corrupt police force.

We're just lucky our police force isn't corrupt - aren't we?

I realise that to find someone guilty it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they did it, but my idea of the death penalty would be that it would only be used in the most heinous of crimes and the proof would have to be more than 'reasonable' doubt and would need to be a combination of factors - DNA, caught red-handed, confessions, multiple witnesses, victims etc.

[Dracoro]

GPSS said:

If the conviction is based on conclusive DNA based evidence, then there is no reason not to have the death penalty.

The old misunderstood *dna* wonder-evidence.

DNA can only, and SHOULD only, be PART of the evidence. It's definitely a very good tool used for convictions (or otherwise of course!).

The problem with dna is that there can be false positives, false negatives, mixups, other people matching your dna (very rare but possible).

[v9 ogre]

But you have someone who is without doubt whatsoever!!!!! and freely admits they did it like Ian Huntley ok ....String em up!

[thehawk]

sstein said:

That means the death penalty isn't a deterrent now, it's revenge. It's certainly not the job of our criminal justice system to carry out revenge, no matter how much the peasants outside are baying for blood!

Who says it isn't the job of our criminal justice system? Surely that's just a moral view that society would hold at any one time and it will change.

[Dracoro]

thehawk said:

my idea of the death penalty would be that it would only be used in the most heinous of crimes and the proof would have to be more than 'reasonable' doubt and would need to be a combination of factors - DNA, caught red-handed, confessions, multiple witnesses, victims etc.

But that IS the current system. And it fails from time to time.

You're trying to distinguish between guilty and *definitely* guity. Well, there is NO distinction, you are either guilty or not and that's how the current system works.

All cases are combination of factors, nothing by itelf can be enough.

The heinious(sp?!)-ness of crimes is already accounted for in sentencing levels/length in jail etc.

[Parrot of Doom]

I'd rather keep people alive than kill them. At least that way, society can learn what went wrong.

Capital punishment doesn't work. Most murders aren't planned, and the worst of them (Sutcliffe for instance) aren't compus mentus. I'd rather clever people learned how these people tick, so we can perhaps work on not having any more start their nefarious activities.

[v9 ogre]

carter711 said:

He is due a fair sized compo I'd say.

I did 22 yrs in the navy...mostly under the atlantic..I bet he gets more than my pension in compo! (ps the ex wife gets my pension) Don't begrudge him though!

[Dracoro]

v9 ogre said:

But you have someone who is without doubt whatsoever!!!!! and freely admits they did it like Ian Huntley ok ....String em up!

How/where do you draw the line (after all you need to state how for anything to get onto the statue books/enshrined in law) and ascertain "no doubt".

Huntley admits it but if there were the death penalty, all he would have to do to escape it is to deny he did it!!

What about those with mental illnesses admitting to crimes that they never committed (this happens a fair bit).

[thehawk]

v9 ogre said:

carter711 said:

He is due a fair sized compo I'd say.

I did 22 yrs in the navy...mostly under the atlantic..I bet he gets more than my pension in compo! (ps the ex wife gets my pension) Don't begrudge him though!

Still, the jury's out on who had to put up with most sodomy I suppose.

Edited by thehawk on Wednesday 18th March 23:50

[King Herald]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Don't you mean: This is why we should never jail people?

The guy was jailed by mistake, not killed, so we should stop jailing people in case we jail the wrong ones. Logical isn't it, if you use your way of looking at it.

[Dracoro]

King Herald said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Don't you mean: This is why we should never jail people?

The guy was jailed by mistake, not killed, so we should stop jailing people in case we jail the wrong ones. Logical isn't it, if you use your way of looking at it.

You really can't see the distinction between a, for all intents and purposes, a reversable punishment and somethimg permanent???

I trust your comment was tongue in cheek sarcasm

[stormin]

carter711 said:

He is due a fair sized compo I'd say.

If he's entitled to £100 per day, £36,500 per year - for 27 years = £985,500

Edited by stormin on Thursday 19th March 00:34

[angryS3owner]

Not sure I agree, if he hadn't lied to the police and wasted their time he'd have likely not ended up in jail either from how I read it.

I'm starting to think even allowing for the occasional mistake the death penalty is a good idea.

Edited by angryS3owner on Thursday 19th March 00:38

[RupertTheFridge]

10 Pence Short said:

From memory the figure can be around £100 a day.

So £100 x 365 days x27 years = £985,500

Divide that by 27 days & 12 months = £3041.66/month

Does seem enough really for a mans life to have been taken away.........

[Orb the Impaler]

Just an observation here, chaps. Assuming that the chap is physically ok (ie. no abnormalities, illnesses etc) why the fk does he look like he's just come out of a concentration camp? Last time I looked we were a civilised country.

(I'm no bleeding heart etc. But I found the blokes appearance disturbing - what's happened to him?)

[v9 ogre]

thehawk said:

v9 ogre said:

carter711 said:

He is due a fair sized compo I'd say.

I did 22 yrs in the navy...mostly under the atlantic..I bet he gets more than my pension in compo! (ps the ex wife gets my pension) Don't begrudge him though!

Still, the jury's out on who had to put up with most sodomy I suppose.

Edited by thehawk on Wednesday 18th March 23:50

You have a biased view!

[thinfourth2]

GPSS said:

If the conviction is based on conclusive DNA based evidence, then there is no reason not to have the death penalty.

Tonight i shall pop into your house and steal your hairbrush

I shall then murder my neighbour and leave a few of your hairs at the scene

100% genetic match to you at the scene

Still happy about DNA evidence?

[Vipers]

Compensation, I think they should make an immediate payment of £500,000 and the rest when his lawyers get on the case for him.

Before you disagree, think about it, suppose it had been you, or your brother.

[V8_GWA]

An earlier poster mentioned that the death penalty would be cheaper than keeping people in prison for life. There is an article in this week's Economist highlighting that quite a few of the death sentence imposing states in the US are moving to drop the death penalty because of the increased cost. The more stringent court processes, additional appeals and keeping people in death row ended up costing IIRC about $1 Million per case more than life imprisonment on average.

Pete