Death penalty recipients?

[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.

[Zod]

so then, define "extreme cases".

[HundredthIdiot]

stitched said:

Those who can be PROVEN beyond all doubt to have committed a calculated killing.

There is always doubt, hence "reasonable". Witnesses lie, evidence can be fabricated.

You are never going to convince the legal profession that the most severe of punishments requires a less comprehensive appeals process than other crimes. That might be because they understand the limitations of their own profession.

[Digga]

The death penalty should be re-introduce with immediate effect for any or all of the following:

1. People who have committed a killing, but only where there is irrefutable evidence. (i.e. on CCTV).
2. People whose skin is unaturally orange.
3. Anyone responsible for putting loose chippings in the road.
4. All those morons who have arbitrarily decided the NSL is 50mph.
5. Profligate and corrupt politicans and civil servants.
6. The Sky engineer who drilled through a gas pipe in my last house.

[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'

[StevieBee]

andymadmak said:

StevieBee said:

I've not seen any evidence to show that where it is still used, there is any reduction in serious crime. In the States, it costs more to impose than life imprisonment as the legal arguments can go on for years - often costing the tax payer millions. All it really does is satisfy the rabid fury of the lower ranks of society.

Nice. So anyone who supports the death penalty is rabid and from the lower ranks of society.

Was referring to American society and generalising.





In 2004, the UK acceded to the 13th Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights, which prohibits the death penalty under any circumstances. The UK may no longer legislate to restore the death penalty while it is subject to the Convention.

It can only restore it if it withdraws from the Council of Europe

The cost of doing so would run to billions, probably irretrievably unstable the already fragile economy as well as require the largest single legal reform in history (costing many more millions).

Assuming this was done, the cost of compensation for families of those that have been handed the DP and subsequently found to be not guilty, would be massive. These costs would affect taxation.

So…..

The “it’s the cheaper option” argument doesn’t really stack up.

The “it’s a deterrent” argument doesn’t really stack up.

It is of course, the ultimate punishment, but surely spending the rest of your natural life in jail is a bigger one. That’s why the likes of Huntely try and Shipman do, top themselves – the thought of never being free and all that entails.

[andymadmak]

Digga said:

The death penalty should be re-introduce with immediate effect for any or all of the following:

1. People who have committed a killing, but only where there is irrefutable evidence. (i.e. on CCTV).
2. People whose skin is unaturally orange.
3. Anyone responsible for putting loose chippings in the road.
4. All those morons who have arbitrarily decided the NSL is 50mph.
5. Profligate and corrupt politicans and civil servants.
6. The Sky engineer who drilled through a gas pipe in my last house.

^
this - beyond any doubt, this. plus the people who attack you in pubs for daring to argue the case against man made global warming theory (hokum), even though it's clear that they have never actually read any of the evidence themselves

[Frankeh]

No one.
Murder isn't ok just because it's state sanctioned.
It'll be a sad day when society is tricked into believing that because big brother says it's ok, it's ok.

[otolith]

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.

[Laurel Green]

I'd much prefer prison to be harsh enough punishment, that long-term prisoners wished for the death penalty to be reinstated.

[Digga]

andymadmak said:

Digga said:

The death penalty should be re-introduce with immediate effect for any or all of the following:

1. People who have committed a killing, but only where there is irrefutable evidence. (i.e. on CCTV).
2. People whose skin is unaturally orange.
3. Anyone responsible for putting loose chippings in the road.
4. All those morons who have arbitrarily decided the NSL is 50mph.
5. Profligate and corrupt politicans and civil servants.
6. The Sky engineer who drilled through a gas pipe in my last house.

^
this - beyond any doubt, this. plus the people who attack you in pubs for daring to argue the case against man made global warming theory (hokum), even though it's clear that they have never actually read any of the evidence themselves

^
Plus people who are incapable of using a public lavatory without getting st everywhere - on the seat, cistern, up the fecking walls... (I have no idea how and nor do I wish to know.)
^
Fly tippers and people who drop litter. Even if it's 'accidental' - which I class as grossly negligent.

[andymadmak]

Laurel Green said:

I'd much prefer prison to be harsh enough punishment, that long-term prisoners wished for the death penalty to be reinstated.

This I like - then its not society that imposes the death penalty, rather its the prisoner who opts for it. Good thinking that man!

[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]

[Justayellowbadge]

The death penalty for littering.

I love PH.

[matchmaker]

It's not as simple as saying execute murderers/don't execute murderers. The Homicide Act 1957 created a new offence of "Capital Murder".

Wiki said:

Until the Homicide Act was passed the mandatory penalty for all adults convicted of murder was death by hanging. After decades of campaigning, abolitionists secured a partial victory with the Act, which limited the circumstances in which murderers could be executed, requiring mandatory life imprisonment in all other cases.

Section 5 - Capital murder

This section created a new offence of capital murder. A person was guilty of this offence if he committed murder in one of five situations:

* Murder in the course or furtherance of theft; s.5(1)(a)
* Murder by shooting or by causing an explosion; s.5(1)(b)
* Murder in the course or for the purpose of resisting, avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, or of effecting or assisting an escape or rescue from legal custody; s.5(1)(c)
* Murder of a police officer acting in the execution of his duty, or of a person assisting a police officer so acting; s.5(1)(d)
* Murder of a prison officer acting in the execution of his duty, or of a person assisting a prison officer so acting, by a person who was a prisoner at the time when he did or was a party to the murder; s.5(1)(e).

Forms of indictment for this offence were provided by S.I. 1957/699.

Section 6 - Death penalty for repeated murders

This section required the death penalty for anyone convicted of two murders committed on two separate occasions, provided both murders were committed in Great Britain.

Section 7 - Abolition of the death penalty for other murders

All other murders were to be punished with mandatory life imprisonment.

So (for example) Ian Huntley wouldn't have been executed.......

Edited by matchmaker on Friday 6th August 13:23

[Murcielago_Boy]

Repeat violent offenders.... 3 violent crimes and you strike out and DIE.

[dandarez]

The trouble with this argument is the one side who are against CP, because of that remote chance of an 'innocent' being swung.

The other side 'for' it argue this because of the increasing numbers of those convicted of heinous crimes who are not seen to be properly punished, and increasing numbers who come out and commit again and even get a 'celebrity' status.

But on which side are 'more' innocents involved?
I don't think it takes much guessing.

I think 'swinging' is a bit ancient.
So how about no swinging, but an introduction of a new 'Birch', that hurts more than the original ?

You'd have the plus of no martyrdom, no burial costs, plus no prison furniture would be needed as they'd still be standing (cos they wouldn't be able to sit for 9 months!) and they'd have an inbuilt reminder to 'think' before committing again.

[otolith]

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.

[matchmaker]

dandarez said:

So how about no swinging, but an introduction of a new 'Birch', that hurts more than the original ?

You'd have the plus of no martyrdom, no burial costs, plus no prison furniture would be needed as they'd still be standing (cos they wouldn't be able to sit for 9 months!) and they'd have an inbuilt reminder to 'think' before committing again.

Like this?
http://www.theglasgowstory.com/image.php?inum=TGSA...

[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?