Bring Back Death Penalty

[Kermit power]

Digga said:

A good point - which may lead us back to andymadmak's suggestion of proper zero tolerance policing?

The anecdotals on ZT are interseting. Think of the 'sorts' you see every day, parking on double-yellows or disabled spaces, chucking litter out of their car windows, driving without insurance etc. etc. and wonder what else they're up to - a lot of them have the Crimewatch look. Seriously.

I'd quite happily have zero tolerance policing on that sort of thing, but the New York experience doesn't support it. It suggests that ZT got the credit for being launched just at the right time. Crime figures had already improved significantly by the time it was launched, but not by so much that it had already overcome people's concerns about it!

[Robbo66]

No, not under any circumstances.
On balance, and having viewed debates on the subject, those who enjoy Jeremy Kyle etc (black & white init, eye for an eye init) would seem to be in favour....whereas the majority of normal well adjusted people, aren't. Rightly so.

[andymadmak]

Robbo66 said:

No, not under any circumstances.
On balance, and having viewed debates on the subject, those who enjoy Jeremy Kyle etc (black & white init, eye for an eye init) would seem to be in favour....whereas the majority of normal well adjusted people, aren't. Rightly so.

You see, this kind of comment actually undermines your position. You won't debate the figures or stats or evidence, you just personalise and insult. Holding a different view from you does no make the other guy "not normal" or " not well adjusted".

I have a view that differs from yours, based on my understanding of the evidence. I have read widely on the subject and at the present time my conclusion is that the DP represents the lesser of two evils. It has never been about "eye for an eye" and indeed it has never been "black and white". You might feel clever characterising people in this way. After all its a helluva lot easier to attack the messenger than deal with the message itself.... No, what it is about is how best to protect the wider population from the criminal excesses of the few, and the DP as part of a wider P&CJ framework could play a valid role in that.

When I went to school (many moons ago) the school had "the slipper" as its ultimate punishment sanction. It was administered by the Headmaster to those who's behaviour crossed the clearly defined line set out by the school. In all my 7 years at the school I believe only 2 kids got the slipper. No one ever got it twice. Lots of kids got detentions and lines and so on, but the slipper remained the ultimate deterrent, rarely used, but an ever present restraint on the potential excesses of bad behaviour
Ever been in a modern school? Zoo .

[Digga]

Robbo66 said:

No, not under any circumstances.
On balance, and having viewed debates on the subject, those who enjoy Jeremy Kyle etc (black & white init, eye for an eye init) would seem to be in favour....whereas the majority of normal well adjusted people, aren't. Rightly so.

Well being either in a minority of well-adjusted people, or perhaps just the general mal-adjusted, I do see your opint. The whole execution business itself could become a mawkish mong-fest - the worst of our rubber-neck culture - and we'd need to consider this. All to be carried out behind closed doors and without fanfare.

It's not about 'revenge' or bloodlust, or even about cost, but simply justice - punishment fitting of the crime and closure for the victim's party.

[Robbo66]

andymadmak said:

Robbo66 said:

No, not under any circumstances.
On balance, and having viewed debates on the subject, those who enjoy Jeremy Kyle etc (black & white init, eye for an eye init) would seem to be in favour....whereas the majority of normal well adjusted people, aren't. Rightly so.

You see, this kind of comment actually undermines your position. You won't debate the figures or stats or evidence, you just personalise and insult. Holding a different view from you does no make the other guy "not normal" or " not well adjusted".

I have a view that differs from yours, based on my understanding of the evidence. I have read widely on the subject and at the present time my conclusion is that the DP represents the lesser of two evils. It has never been about "eye for an eye" and indeed it has never been "black and white". You might feel clever characterising people in this way. After all its a helluva lot easier to attack the messenger than deal with the message itself.... No, what it is about is how best to protect the wider population from the criminal excesses of the few, and the DP as part of a wider P&CJ framework could play a valid role in that.

When I went to school (many moons ago) the school had "the slipper" as its ultimate punishment sanction. It was administered by the Headmaster to those who's behaviour crossed the clearly defined line set out by the school. In all my 7 years at the school I believe only 2 kids got the slipper. No one ever got it twice. Lots of kids got detentions and lines and so on, but the slipper remained the ultimate deterrent, rarely used, but an ever present restraint on the potential excesses of bad behaviour
Ever been in a modern school? Zoo .

Not trying to insult, just my experience of the various debates I've seen or been involved with. Not sure your slipper analogy holds much water. My wifes's a teacher in probably the roughest school in these parts, indeed a zoo. The slipper or tag are seen as badges of honour.
It has been proved that the DP is not a deterrent in all cases, and could lead to further crimes being committed on 'his/her way out'/ Martyrdom etc, and we all know that mistakes have been made regarding convictions. Respect your opinion and view, but that's it.

[Chimune]

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

[TheHeretic]

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.

[Raify]

andymadmak said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sadly not. Blair / Brown and co abolished that. (perhaps for their own protection?)

Probably more to do with being a member of the EU / signing of the human rights act. Re-instating the death penalty would require the UK leaving the EU + that act.

[Digga]

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.

[Robbo66]

Bedazzled said:

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. .

Heaven help us.

[Zod]

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]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I was waiting for that reply!

[TheHeretic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?