PistonHeads.com Forum

Bring Back Death Penalty

Poll: Bring Back Death Penalty

Total Members Polled: 513

Yes: 47%
No: 53%
Author
Discussion

Zod

29,079 posts

155 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Digga said:
2. As we already stated. The evidence would need to be far stronger for DP. As I understand it, evidence for Stapleton would not have relied in DNA but in fact consisted of a far stronger case.

IMHO for all other murders, we'd still need to stick at life.
One glaring problem: we don't have verdicts of "quite guilty", "very guilty" and "absobloodylutely guilty".

We have only a simple "guilty" verdict.

Raify

6,537 posts

145 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Isaac Hunt said:
That in itself is reason enough to bring back the DP
hehe I was waiting for that reply!

TheHeretic

73,668 posts

152 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Digga said:
TheHeretic said:
Chimune said:
dandarez said:
They were 'absolutely' sure of 19 year old Adam Scott's guilt. The DNA match showed he was a rapist. That's why he went to prison.

Good job he was done for rape and not murder with a death penalty.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113025/Te...
^^ This
This indeed. People seem to just gloss over it.
Two glaring facts:

1. He was never even convicted.
The Article said:
Adam Scott, 19, was due to stand trial next month
2. As we already stated. The evidence would need to be far stronger for DP. As I understand it, evidence for Stapleton would not have relied in DNA but in fact consisted of a far stronger case.

IMHO for all other murders, we'd still need to stick at life.
Let us hope that such glaring errors do not get through the net then.
Ah, the 'special cases' for the DP. I presume these special cases would be 100% free of any error, ineptitude, etc?

Justices

3,046 posts

61 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Capital punishment doesn't solve anything. I'd consider it more of a release for someone who has done something heinous. The rest of your days behind bars able to do bugger-all but count the days? Or a few moments of pain and a nice long nap?

If I wanted someone to suffer, I'd opt for the former.

Chimune

1,848 posts

120 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Digga said:
2. As we already stated. The evidence would need to be far stronger for DP. As I understand it, evidence for Stapleton would not have relied in DNA but in fact consisted of a far stronger case.
What if Stapleton was what the tabloids might call 'wierd', or was on the Sex Offender Register already, or couldnt prove where he was at the time ? What if he was homeless or a drug user ?

You seem to trust the mechanisms of the state and scoiety much more than i do !

Edited by Chimune on Friday 5th October 14:50

Digga

15,293 posts

180 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Chimune]igga said:
2. As we already stated. The evidence would need to be far stronger for DP. As I understand it, evidence for Stapleton would not have relied in DNA but in fact consisted of a far stronger case.

[quote]

What if Stapleton was what the tabloids might call 'wierd', or was on the Sex Offender Register already, or couldnt prove where he was at the time ? What if he was homeless or a drug user ?

You seem to trust the mechanisms of the state and scoiety much more than i do !
But your whole argument fails to grasp the fact that there are convictions served crimes that no one could argue the criminal had not comitted. Some of thse are murders. For all else, I'd agree the DP is morally and legally very wrong.

Zod

29,079 posts

155 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Digga said:
But your whole argument fails to grasp the fact that there are convictions served crimes that no one could argue the criminal had not comitted. Some of thse are murders. For all else, I'd agree the DP is morally and legally very wrong.
Just try to write the section of the Statute that would describe the circumstances in which the death penalty was appropriate.

Digga

15,293 posts

180 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Zod said:
Digga said:
But your whole argument fails to grasp the fact that there are convictions served crimes that no one could argue the criminal had not comitted. Some of thse are murders. For all else, I'd agree the DP is morally and legally very wrong.
Just try to write the section of the Statute that would describe the circumstances in which the death penalty was appropriate.
As I wrote that, the thought did cross my mind. I never said it was going to be easy.

[Richard Branson]I thought I'd leave it to you lot (our learned friends in the trade) to get my idea onto its feet.[/Richard Branson]

Chimune

1,848 posts

120 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Digga said:
But your whole argument fails to grasp the fact that there are convictions served crimes that no one could argue the criminal had not comitted. Some of thse are murders. For all else, I'd agree the DP is morally and legally very wrong.
YOU dont seem to grasp that I dont trust YOUR or anyone elses judgement on which cases those are.

Your argument seems to assume ( and indeed rely on ) that in a lot of current convictions, it could be argued that the criminal DIDNT actually commit them. In which case the entire jucdice system we have is fuked - and you STILL want to kill people at the end of the process !

Look, either we convict people and they are guilty - or they are not. You either trust the system so much that you are prepared to kill those who commit suitably ugly crimes, or the whole system is wrong.

You cant have it both ways by saying some convictions are better than others - because some politian or other is going to have to decide on a case by case basis which ones qualify as being 100%,definately,totaly,like he even admitted it, and that guy actually saw him do it, correct.

Digga

15,293 posts

180 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Chimune said:
YOU dont seem to grasp that I dont trust YOUR or anyone elses judgement on which cases those are.
So if I go down to Trafalgar Square tomorrow morning, tooled up, with intent, and take a life, with witnesses and CCTV and with the comensurate back-up of DNA evidence to boot I perhaps didn't do it?

Ozzie Osmond

17,027 posts

143 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Chimune said:
You cant have it both ways by saying some convictions are better than others.
Of course you can. The burden of proof in criminal trials is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "beyond all possible doubt". This clearly leaves room for errors to be made which only come to light at a later date.

Twincam16

27,646 posts

155 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Zod said:
Digga said:
2. As we already stated. The evidence would need to be far stronger for DP. As I understand it, evidence for Stapleton would not have relied in DNA but in fact consisted of a far stronger case.

IMHO for all other murders, we'd still need to stick at life.
One glaring problem: we don't have verdicts of "quite guilty", "very guilty" and "absobloodylutely guilty".

We have only a simple "guilty" verdict.
Also, it doesn't alter the fact that some people confess to crimes they didn't commit, seemingly to gain a bit of infamy.

Think about 'Wearside Jack' - the guy who taunted police by pretending to be the Yorkshire Ripper, but wasn't. Also, most infamously, what about Timothy Evans? Had the misfortune to live in the same block of flats as John Reginald Christie. Christie murdered Evans's wife and daughter, and yet somehow the police got Evans to confess.

Evans was hanged, and yet the police didn't even bother searching the house and garden, where they would have found the bodies of Ruth Fuerst and Muriel Eady, murdered by Christie a few years earlier. Thanks to the police pinning it all on an innocent man and hanging him for it, Christie was let off scot-free even though he was once actually detained as a suspect, and he went on to kill four more women including his wife.

So even when we had the death penalty, even coming within a gnat's knickers of the gallows didn't make a serial killer even think twice.

Kermit power

18,061 posts

110 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Bedazzled said:
Because fundamentally life in prison serves no purpose, it's just a waste of resources because we can't stomach our responsibilities; and these days it can mean a comfortable existence to which they have no entitlement, imho. Execution provides timely justice for the victim's family and it's the most practical outcome for society as a whole.

Mistakes WILL happen, be under no illusion, but I think it's a necessary evil for the greater good rather like civilian casualties in war. When they do happen we need to learn from it and improve the criminal investigation process; it doesn't mean the punishment is wrong in principle, imo. It can also be abused by political pressures from time to time, as we have seen in the past, but it comes down to having the right checks and balances.

I don't think capital punishment compromises one's moral standing, we maintain our dignity by the seriousness with which cases are debated in a court of law, and by showing the courage of our convictions to implement justice. If a dog or wild animal attacks a person it should be put down humanely not hidden away in a kennel, out of sight out of mind, for the rest of its life; does that make us immoral?
The fact that you seem unable to distinguish between humans and wild animals is exactly the reason why we should be grateful that your way of thinking is the minority!

You talk about "timely justice for the victim's family", and being "the most practical outcome for society as a whole". OK, fair enough. Let's look at family...

We have a scenario where someone has been murdered. Let's assume that person has a 10 year old daughter. That 10yr old has just lost her father. In an instant, her world falls apart, and things will never, ever be the same again.

Then the police catch the murderer. They've got him bang to rights. The DNA evidence is 100% conclusive. There's a one in 4 billion chance that he's not the killer.

So, you're baying for the death sentence. You want him to hang so that little girl gets her "timely justice".

OK. Now you personally have to go and explain to the convicted murderer's 10 year old daughter why her father is going to be killed by the state because it's "the most practical outcome for society as a whole". Let's see you explain to a second little girl why she has to lose her father, when she's no more guilty of any crime than the victim's daughter.

Then, a few years down the line, when it comes to light that there was a fk up at the DNA labs and that actually the now-executed murderer was in fact completely innocent, you go and explain to his daughter that actually her father shouldn't have been executed in the first place, but hey, don't worry, little girl! Your innocent father's execution at the hands of the state was for the greater good, and we are going to learn lessons from it, so it's all fine, OK?

Then come back and report to us on how that little girl took it, and whilst you're at it, let us know how her life came on in the intervening years since you executed her father.

Chimune

1,848 posts

120 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Digga said:
o if I go down to Trafalgar Square tomorrow morning, tooled up, with intent, and take a life, with witnesses and CCTV and with the comensurate back-up of DNA evidence to boot I perhaps didn't do it?
Im sure you did do it, but perhaps you are mad and even the USA dont kill the insane. What happens now ?

Chimune

1,848 posts

120 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Ozzie Osmond said:
Of course you can. The burden of proof in criminal trials is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "beyond all possible doubt". This clearly leaves room for errors to be made which only come to light at a later date.
Beyond reasonable doubt isnt what Digger is discussing. He want dp for 'beyond all possible doubt'.

My point is, who get to decide when it moves from 'reasonable' to 'all possible'.
Jack Straw ?

Steameh

3,152 posts

107 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Bedazzled said:
I don't think capital punishment compromises one's moral standing, we maintain our dignity by the seriousness with which cases are debated in a court of law, and by showing the courage of our convictions to implement justice. If a dog or wild animal attacks a person it should be put down humanely not hidden away in a kennel, out of sight out of mind, for the rest of its life; does that make us immoral?
Disagree entirely. Killing someone is wrong no matter who they are, it is one of the fundamental principles of my morality.

If you take it to it's base level, answer this question; Do you believe that killing someone is ok?

Kermit power

18,061 posts

110 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Digga said:
Chimune said:
YOU dont seem to grasp that I dont trust YOUR or anyone elses judgement on which cases those are.
So if I go down to Trafalgar Square tomorrow morning, tooled up, with intent, and take a life, with witnesses and CCTV and with the comensurate back-up of DNA evidence to boot I perhaps didn't do it?
You did it, certainly. And 3 weeks after your execution, some clever techie in a crime lab somewhere is going to figure out how I used a new drug I'd developed to take control of your mind and force you to kill that person without even knowing you'd done it. You'll be exonerated!!! Of course, the news people might struggle slightly to interview you for your reaction.

Sounds outlandish, but it's exactly what the CIA spent 6 years trying to achieve with their MKultra project.

Bedazzled

9,829 posts

118 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Kermit power said:
...So, you're baying for the death sentence. You want him to hang so that little girl gets her "timely justice".

OK. Now you personally have to go and explain to the convicted murderer's 10 year old daughter why her father is going to be killed by the state because it's "the most practical outcome for society as a whole". Let's see you explain to a second little girl why she has to lose her father, when she's no more guilty of any crime than the victim's daughter.

Then, a few years down the line, when it comes to light that there was a fk up at the DNA labs and that actually the now-executed murderer was in fact completely innocent, you go and explain to his daughter that actually her father shouldn't have been executed in the first place, but hey, don't worry, little girl! Your innocent father's execution at the hands of the state was for the greater good, and we are going to learn lessons from it, so it's all fine, OK?

Then come back and report to us on how that little girl took it, and whilst you're at it, let us know how her life came on in the intervening years since you executed her father.
People opposed to the death penalty always make it personal, citing emotional sob stories with little girls and suchlike, trying to tug on the heart strings, always asking "how would YOU feel?". I'm not baying for the death penalty, I think it's morally correct and practical from a dispassionate point of view. Equally a lot of people who are pro will argue the technology is much better these days, well yes it is and guess what they'll still get it wrong sometimes, regardless. If you can't stomach that, you have to vote no.

When I did jury service I remember another member of the jury saying things like "we can't find him guilty, just think of the impact on his poor family when he has to tell them what he did". Totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't have done it in the first place. When you're on a jury you are responsible for that person's life and you will change it one way or another, if you erroneously put your fictional girl's father away for twenty years it's no different imho, you're just ducking your responsibility by saying "well, we can always let him out later and say sorry".

We don't make wars illegal because a few innocent people die in them, we just accept it as a necessary evil and act with as much dignity as possible. It's just the way of things, I wouldn't want to go and explain to every German and Japanese family why we murdered their grand parents, especially those not involved in the war effort, but it was necessary in the bigger picture. It's strange that when a few thousand innocent civilians die in a war, people are capable of evaluating it rationally, but when it's about a individual little girl and her dad, all the wibbly-wobbly emotion comes to the fore.

Edited by Bedazzled on Friday 5th October 16:01

thinfourth2

32,414 posts

101 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
You can scream as much as you like about justice etc and so on but there is another down side to the death penalty



Will get very rich from defending those that are to be put to death

Isaac Hunt

7,555 posts

108 months

Friday 5th October 2012
quotequote all
Bedazzled said:
When you're on a jury you are responsible for that person's life
Trial by Jury only tends to happen where the evidence is not 100% cast iron - or the defendant is banking on key witnesses not showing up.

Where the evidence is 100% - CCTV footage, DNA, fingerprints, witnessed by 50 police, etc then a defendant is likely to plead guilty.

The general public are unlikely to be sentencing someone to their death. Even if it was a Trial by Jury, the Judge passes the sentence.

I made this point earlier in the thread.

Where evidence is 100% without a shadow of a doubt, then IMHO the DP could be a consideration for murder.