This is why we must never bring back the death sentence...
Discussion
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?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.
thehawk said:
Negative Creep said:
You're right, we should bring back the death penalty. After all, just look at places like the USA and China - they're pretty much crime free.
Oh, hang on a sec..........
Nothing to do with crime prevention. IMO these people have lost the right to live in a society and we don't need them anymore. Oh, hang on a sec..........
I suspect you must work in the prison system as you're obviously an expert?
dpbird90 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.
I agree with you, it would be a lot easier to make sure the innocent people are not wrongly convicted with DNA analysis etc, the chances of getting it wrong are very slim, but still the death penalty should only be applied to the absolute worst cases e.g. serial killerOne 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.
I would add that to find someone guilty it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In my world, for the DP to be pronounced it would have to be beyond 'reasonable' doubt and only for serial killer/rapists/pedophiles. bbc said:
At the time of Mr Hodgson's trial, DNA tests were not available, with the first use of such evidence in court not taking place until 1986 in Leicester.
makes you wonder why it has taken so long to clear him tho... I mean, ok the guy confessed and retracted a few times before his conviction, but since then has maintained his innocence - surely they should look at those cases more closely when they have the evidence to be checked?stormin said:
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 = £985,500Edited by stormin on Thursday 19th March 00:34
Let's also keep in mind that his original 'confessions' should never have been taken at face value without hard and substantive additional evidence. Some people say the strangest of things at times - it is the responsibility of the authorities to make sure that any enforcement is based on the truth.
GPSS said:
If the conviction is based on conclusive DNA based evidence, then there is no reason not to have the death penalty.
Although the science and basis of DNA evidence is sound and secure, its the process that I have the problem with. We have consistently seen that very small elements within our law enforcement and criminal justice system are either utterly incompetent or downright dodgy. So the possibility and convenience of adjusting the results on purpose or accident is far too high. Add to this the problem with any form of database run by the government or government department and you have an utter disaster on our hands.Yes, the billion to one chance of the science being wrong is good - but can be so sure of the people, process and system being as good? I cannot (and I have direct experience of this) and we run the risk of securing a conviction based on this, knowing its wrong. We need to be extremely careful when we use DNA and it needs to be scientifically and procedurally sound - and its NOT the answer to crime solving in the 21st century.
Dracoro said:
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).
I have views either way on the death penalty, but agree with the Ian Huntley case. Huntley has cost tax payers a fortune since being locked away, as he is on constant suicide watch. If the man wants to die, leave him to it, it would save us all a fortune.
Parrot of Doom said:
Most murders aren't planned ...
But surely that's the difference isn't it - murders ARE planned ... weeks in advance or maybe seconds in advance ...Anything else is manslaughter (in a legal sense). Hence why some thugs who get challenged by a houseowner when they're pissing in his garden and then beat up the poor bloke and he dies normally get charged with the lesser crime ...
Huntley (for instance) had the girls knock at his door and thought: "Hello?" ...
I dunno, way i see it the guy confessed.
If i walked up to a big guy and tell him i have just slept with his wife... i am accepting the consequences.
Likewise, this fella confessed to the crime, how cast iron a conviction do you want? Sure DNA has proven otherwise, but back then, at the time... thats a pretty solid conviction.
If i walked up to a big guy and tell him i have just slept with his wife... i am accepting the consequences.
Likewise, this fella confessed to the crime, how cast iron a conviction do you want? Sure DNA has proven otherwise, but back then, at the time... thats a pretty solid conviction.
ehyouwhat said:
Let's also keep in mind that his original 'confessions' should never have been taken at face value without hard and substantive additional evidence.
Like the fact he knew many details of the crime scene that weren't in the public domain you mean. Or thast he possessed a skeleton key that could unlock the car.Bearing in mind they didn't have DNA evidence back then they actually had a fairly good case against him (when you take the initial confession into account)
Cant be bothered to read the whole thread, but how does this case prove we should not bring back the death Penalty, FFS????
His conviction was based upon a lie told by him, in a day when they didnt have the DNA methods that we have today?
A guy does 27 years in prison for lying that he comitted a murder, so that means that if a man kills & rapes a young girl next week, he shouldnt be hanged?
Sorry, but you are talking complete b
ks!
His conviction was based upon a lie told by him, in a day when they didnt have the DNA methods that we have today?
A guy does 27 years in prison for lying that he comitted a murder, so that means that if a man kills & rapes a young girl next week, he shouldnt be hanged?
Sorry, but you are talking complete b
ks!He was a plank for confessing, but IMO this is no reason to never bring back the death penalty.
Perhaps if there had been a death penalty in place, he would not have been such an idiot to confess in the first place, and if he did, well Darwin needs a hand occasionally.
There are some right sickos that need putting down in the country, an occasional loony nutter who gets caught up in it is no great loss IMO
I hope they knock the £40k a year it costs us tax payers to keep this fool in clink off his compo, oh and all his legal fees. If they did he would have fapp all I reckon.
Perhaps if there had been a death penalty in place, he would not have been such an idiot to confess in the first place, and if he did, well Darwin needs a hand occasionally.
There are some right sickos that need putting down in the country, an occasional loony nutter who gets caught up in it is no great loss IMO
I hope they knock the £40k a year it costs us tax payers to keep this fool in clink off his compo, oh and all his legal fees. If they did he would have fapp all I reckon.
Edited by s3fella on Thursday 19th March 11:08
s3fella said:
Perhaps if there had been a death penalty in place, he would not have been such an idiot to confess in the first place, and if he did, well Darwin needs a hand occasionally.
Mental illness knows not rational thought. What the potential punishment is largely irrelevant.ben_reza said:
this fella confessed to the crime, how cast iron a conviction do you want? Sure DNA has proven otherwise, but back then, at the time... thats a pretty solid conviction.
DNA evidence is used in case where it is a "pretty solid conviction", this is at THIS time. 27 years in the future we may not be believing the same, some limitations may be found who knows.1 in a billion some say. That's not ALWAYS 1 in a billion, sometimes less. Anyway, at best that's FIVE other people with the same DNA as you in the world. I reckon chances are, due to race and so forth that those five other people will be in the same country as you. That's FIVE other people in the country.
Anyway, what it "proves" is that you are one of the FIVE people who could have been at the scene of the crime etc. For sure, it's probably beyond "reasonable doubt" that it was you but NOT 100% is it! Enough for a conviction no doubt but lack of death penalty means that in the future if found out to be the other guy with the same DNA then original guy can be released.
Anyway, NO-ONE has put forward a system to implement this "definitely guilty" process. The best most can put forward is what we ALREADY have and that system fails from time to time.
Orb the Impaler said:
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?)
If I spent 28 years in jail for a murder I hadn't committed I think I'd be so bitter, vengeful and loathing of the justice system, and society in general, that I'd waste away to nothing too.k 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?)
Dracoro said:
Anyway, NO-ONE has put forward a system to implement this "definitely guilty" process. The best most can put forward is what we ALREADY have and that system fails from time to time.
Having been accused by TWO policemen of a traffic offence of driving down a one way street the wrong way, WHEN I DIDNT, I am dubious of any conviction whatever the evidence was, resulting in the death penalty.
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 death penalty does not deter crime. Lock the guilty up, let them work in Uranium mines, but killing them is inhumane.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.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff