Bring Back Death Penalty

[AJS-]

I know, tons of polls recently, but I find them interesting.

How would you vote if there was a referendum tomorrow on introducing the death penalty (as humanely as possible) for crimes carrying over 25 year sentences on current guidelines.

[danjama]

With todays technological equipment and lengthy investigations, using forensics etc, I see no reason why it should not be brought back, if we are absolutely sure of a persons guilt. And there is very little chance of false conviction in this day and age.

Absolutely I would want it brought back.

[TheHeretic]

No. Our justice system cannot be trusted not to send innocent folks to their deaths. I've posted this before on similar threads. It is the number of death row exonerations in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_de...

[Digga]

TheHeretic said:

No. Our justice system cannot be trusted not to send innocent folks to their deaths. I've posted this before on similar threads. It is the number of death row exonerations in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_de...

Surely there are cases though, were the evidence is absolute? I'm thinking of situations where there are multiple witnesses and incontrovertible supporting evidence.

[TheHeretic]

Digga said:

Surely there are cases though, were the evidence is absolute? I'm thinking of situations where there are multiple witnesses and incontrovertible supporting evidence.

Ah, so only those where there is absolute proof? If there was any doubt, they would not be in prison in the first place, surely? The assumption that you have extra special cases where the death penalty is fine, but only for those special cases is absurd. Everyone in prison has been found guilty. If there was doubt, they would not be there.

[nunattax]

danjama said:

With todays technological equipment and lengthy investigations, using forensics etc, I see no reason why it should not be brought back, if we are absolutely sure of a persons guilt. And there is very little chance of false conviction in this day and age.

Absolutely I would want it brought back.

FOOL, BIRMINGHAM SIX ,GUILDFORD FOUR------RING ANY BELLS

[Phil1]

TheHeretic said:

Ah, so only those where there is absolute proof? If there was any doubt, they would not be in prison in the first place, surely? The assumption that you have extra special cases where the death penalty is fine, but only for those special cases is absurd. Everyone in prison has been found guilty. If there was doubt, they would not be there.

There's quite lot of people convicted prior to modern investigative techniques. I wouldn't compare exonerations of those found guilty in the past with the same weight as those found since techniques have improved.

Would be interesting to see how the rate of miscarriages has fared over the years.

[TheHeretic]

Phil1 said:

There's quite lot of people convicted prior to modern investigative techniques. I wouldn't compare exonerations of those found guilty in the past with the same weight as those found since techniques have improved.

Would be interesting to see how the rate of miscarriages has fared over the years.

Look at the link I posted. DNA profiling was introduced in '86 or '87 I think. There are a considerable number of exonerations after is.

[AJS-]

TheHeretic said:

Ah, so only those where there is absolute proof? If there was any doubt, they would not be in prison in the first place, surely? The assumption that you have extra special cases where the death penalty is fine, but only for those special cases is absurd. Everyone in prison has been found guilty. If there was doubt, they would not be there.

Those currently in prison are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I don't see why you couldn't introduce a higher standard of evidence specifically for the death penalty of beyond shadow of a doubt. This could restrict it's use to cases where there is either video footage, an admission or some other irrefutable evidence pinning the crime on the defendent.

[eldar]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

[Phil1]

TheHeretic said:

Look at the link I posted. DNA profiling was introduced in '86 or '87 I think. There are a considerable number of exonerations after is.

I did look at the list, hence my previous point. Has DNA profiling not changed since '86/87 then? I think things have moved on and would be easily convinced that things have improved sufficiently to warrant the reintroduction. I agree that previously it was not warranted. I'd like to see a proper independent review of the rates of miscarriage and reasons for overturning them before comitting in any vote though.

[TheHeretic]

Well, assuming you only use irrefutable evidence, that would somewhat put the rest of evidence used as a bit dodgy, would it not?

Will not work, I am afraid, and the moment we find out that anyone innocent had been put to death based on your irrefutable evidence, well, what then? Blood on your hands?

[AJS-]

Phil1 said:

There's quite lot of people convicted prior to modern investigative techniques. I wouldn't compare exonerations of those found guilty in the past with the same weight as those found since techniques have improved.

Would be interesting to see how the rate of miscarriages has fared over the years.

Technologies are only as good as the people using them. In cases where evidence is tampered with to a certain end then it only serves to make people more certain of the wrong result.

[TheHeretic]

eldar said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

Exhibit A for the defense.

[Pappa Lurve]

Another no here! Not really sure what it would achieve. Countries such as the USA and Jamaican have it yet serious crime rates are far higher than those that don't. There is often a huge social divide between who ends up doing time and who ends up being executed. There is simply no such thing as a perfect justice system and thus inevitably a mistake or two will be made which is a little hard to go and correct which are all strong arguments against.

Arguments for... um, well, I guess it cuts down on re offending and if done rapidly, is cheap. Cost is not a huge issue in my mind as justice and getting it right is more important than a few quid saved and indeed in the US a person on death row costs more than one in for life I believe.

My final objection is simpler though. We live in a fairly low crime country compared to many. Our system may not be great but broadly it works and although it could use improvement I am not sure giving the State a licence to enact killings other than in war and extreme circumstances such as Police taking out someone armed and dangerous or James Bond style stuff, if that ever even happens.

We live in a civilised country with a well respected legal system. It ain't perfect but will frying the odd murderer make any difference other than up the leccy bill and opening the door to a doubtless very occasional error? Not that I can see.

I do however feel strongly that anyone who says that we should all crush fun, noisy, fast, loud and pointless cars and replace them with a nice eco box of epic dullness, should be executed immediately, possibly twice, by electrocution from the combined power pack of 398 Prious linked together!

[Eric Mc]

TheHeretic said:

eldar said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

Exhibit A for the defense.

Absolutely.

People make mistakes all the time - it's human.

[0000]

danjama said:

With todays technological equipment and lengthy investigations, using forensics etc, I see no reason why it should not be brought back

This faith in technology (and the conclusions we draw from it) is exactly why it shouldn't be brought back.

[AJS-]

TheHeretic said:

Well, assuming you only use irrefutable evidence, that would somewhat put the rest of evidence used as a bit dodgy, would it not?

Will not work, I am afraid, and the moment we find out that anyone innocent had been put to death based on your irrefutable evidence, well, what then? Blood on your hands?

Not really. A man walking out of the woods with blood on his shirt killed the woman lying in the woods stabbed to death, beyond reasonable doubt. The man seen on CCTV kicking someone's head against the pavement until they die killed him beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course every case introduces new variables, but I think judges and juries are sophisticated enough to make the distinction.

[dandarez]

danjama said:

With todays technological equipment and lengthy investigations, using forensics etc, I see no reason why it should not be brought back, if we are absolutely sure of a persons guilt. And there is very little chance of false conviction in this day and age.

Absolutely I would want it brought back.

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...

[TheHeretic]

AJS- said:

Not really. A man walking out of the woods with blood on his shirt killed the woman lying in the woods stabbed to death, beyond reasonable doubt. The man seen on CCTV kicking someone's head against the pavement until they die killed him beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course every case introduces new variables, but I think judges and juries are sophisticated enough to make the distinction.

Clearly doesn't work in the states.