Death penalty recipients?

[stitched]

If the death penalty were re-introduced who do you think should be 'customers'?

[stitched]

Well I naively hoped this wouldn't turn into a pro or con thread but for the record.
Predatory paedophiles.
Child killers.
Those who can be PROVEN beyond all doubt to have committed a calculated killing.


Bent coppers?

[stitched]

Zod said:

There is no evidence whatsoever that the death penalty affects serious crime rates.

None of those arguing for its reintroduction can manage much better thatn "it should be applied in cases where the defendant is clearly guilty". The standard of proof in a criminal court is "beyind reasonable doubt". There are cases in which the wrong verdict is reached.

What the death penalty adherents really mean is "hang those whom the Sun deems guilty".

Really,
This seems to me the equivalent of standing in the corner of the playground, fingers in ears shoutin naa naaa so you can't hear an argument which beats yours.
Actually I only use the sun to soak up puppy piss.
I advocate the death penalty only in extreme cases such as Sutcliff and was curious to hear other opinions on who deserved to die.

[stitched]

Zod said:

so then, define "extreme cases".

No, that argument goes in the 'is the death penalty right' thread.

This one is for 'who should die if it were re-introduced'

[stitched]

otolith said:

I think there are two arguments being made there, which need to be addressed separately -

1. That the death penalty should apply to those crimes which particularly outrage public opinion

2. That the death penalty should require a higher standard of proof

The second one makes no sense, because the current standard of proof is as high as we can reasonably have. If there is any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is found not guilty, so in every case where the accused is found guilty we are as sure as we can be that this is the case. And sometimes we are wrong.

The first one - well, I don't support the death penalty, but it does seem to me that there is a more general lack of public confidence that those who commit crime get what they deserve. If justice is not being seen to be done to the satisfaction of the public, the justice system is failing. This should be addressed, I think. More transparency in sentencing and actual time served and of conditions in prisons would be a start.

[will not debate moral issue off]
Couldn't let this slide.
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is not sufficient IMHO, full release of ALL evidence to a seperate jury after conviction who reccomend yea or nay to a panel of 3 judges who may then apply the sentence of death if they are convinced there is no doubt at all of guilt.
[will not debate moral issue on]

[stitched]

otolith said:

stitched said:

Guilty beyond reasonable doubt is not sufficient IMHO, full release of ALL evidence to a seperate jury after conviction who reccomend yea or nay to a panel of 3 judges who may then apply the sentence of death if they are convinced there is no doubt at all of guilt.
[will not debate moral issue on]

So automatic judicial review / appeal which either gets them death or aquittal. Not going to change the outcome in miscarriages of justice where the court made the right decision on the basis of the evidence before it, but the evidence was wrong.

OK I'll bite.
I think there are cases where there is no doubt at all, Fred West, Peter Sutcliffe and several others?

[stitched]

IF, and it's a bloody big if for a reason, I were convinced that the person were guilty of the crimes I believed warranted death then yes I would be willing to be the instrument of death.
There are some criminals, admittedly very few, who IMHO deserve to die but I don't believe any government could be trusted to administer such punishment.
I am therefore in the camp of not re-introducing the death penalty.
However the thread was to enquire opinion.
In the hypothetical scenario including the death penalty as an option what crimes should merit death in your opinion?

[stitched]

otolith said:

Sticking strictly to who deserves it rather than who we should do it to - premeditated murder of someone who has done you no harm (including cases where the murder was not planned but was part of a premeditated crime) and repeat offenders / multiple murderers.

Ta

Next