Cop Killer found Guilty
Discussion
Tafia said:
The guy who killed Leeds TrafPol PC Broadhurst on Boxing Day has been found guilty. Good.
Pity they don't send him home to the US where he could be crossed off for such a crime.
Indeed. I've never quite understodd the libreral brigade who think it isn't right to take a life for a life. Seems perfectly equitable to me.
ca092003 said:
ca092003 said:
The guy who killed Leeds TrafPol PC Broadhurst on Boxing Day has been found guilty. Good.
Pity they don't send him home to the US where he could be crossed off for such a crime.
Indeed. I've never quite understodd the libreral brigade who think it isn't right to take a life for a life. Seems perfectly equitable to me.
Its not.
As much as I agree to seeing these
s hang, there is no system of law that garuntees 100% accuracy. Imagine if, by some wierd set of events that he was found to be 100% innocent (like some sort of elaborate framing or something). At least he could be set free.
Since there is no way of ever proving anything 100%, there can be no death penalty.
Sir,
I'm very pleased hear that news.
I'm also glad that the evil man originally pleaded Not Guilty. Now that he's been found Guilty by a jury of his 'peers', no lighter sentence or acknowledgement for his early admission will be given.
I only hope that he lives each day in misery, missing his libery, his freedom and the things we all take for granted.
God bless PC Ian Broadhurst.
I'm very pleased hear that news.
I'm also glad that the evil man originally pleaded Not Guilty. Now that he's been found Guilty by a jury of his 'peers', no lighter sentence or acknowledgement for his early admission will be given.
I only hope that he lives each day in misery, missing his libery, his freedom and the things we all take for granted.
God bless PC Ian Broadhurst.
gh0st said:
Tafia said:
ca092003 said:
The guy who killed Leeds TrafPol PC Broadhurst on Boxing Day has been found guilty. Good.
Pity they don't send him home to the US where he could be crossed off for such a crime.
Indeed. I've never quite understodd the libreral brigade who think it isn't right to take a life for a life. Seems perfectly equitable to me.
Its not.
As much as I agree to seeing these
Imagine if, by some wierd set of events that he was found to be 100% innocent (like some sort of elaborate framing or something). At least he could be set free.
Since there is no way of ever proving anything 100%, there can be no death penalty.
Bollox. There is no need to prove it 100%. All the law needs to prove is "beyond reasonable doubt". With the developments in DNA technology, it is easier to prove something now that it was, say, 30 years ago.
Ca - you are right but the system is far from flawless.
There is still corruption. DNA evidence etc is 100% but what if someone plants it etc tec.
There have been plenty of people put away "beyond reasonable doubt" yet have been proved wrong.
Those cases of cot death spring to mind...
There is still corruption. DNA evidence etc is 100% but what if someone plants it etc tec.
There have been plenty of people put away "beyond reasonable doubt" yet have been proved wrong.
Those cases of cot death spring to mind...
Look at it another way, anyone know how many prisoners commit or try to commit suicide? Notice how so many lifers end up on suicide watch etc?
If so many are so keen to end things maybe being locked up for year after year after year isn't as easy to handle as is made out by some people.
Death penalty may prove to be an easier option to many than long sentances.
Just another slant on things...
If so many are so keen to end things maybe being locked up for year after year after year isn't as easy to handle as is made out by some people.
Death penalty may prove to be an easier option to many than long sentances.
Just another slant on things...
One less nasty piece of work off the streets which is a good thing. Shame a copper had to die to achieve this. You're right he will be treated with maximum respect for his actions, although i'm sure the prison warders might be unable to stop him tripping down the odd flight of stairs with any luck.
how long before this thread turns into a death penalty debate?
how long before this thread turns into a death penalty debate?
ca092003 said:
Indeed. I've never quite understodd the libreral brigade who think it isn't right to take a life for a life. Seems perfectly equitable to me.
The murderer gets punished for killing.
If the punishment is to kill him, it removes any moral position the law has that to kill in civil circumstances is wrong.
ca092003 said:
Bollox. There is no need to prove it 100%. All the law needs to prove is "beyond reasonable doubt". With the developments in DNA technology, it is easier to prove something now that it was, say, 30 years ago.
If you were going to kill someone for a reason, I think it sensible that the basis upon which you do so is 'beyond any doubt at all'.
Afterall what is reasonable?
gh0st said:
Ca - you are right but the system is far from flawless.
There is still corruption. DNA evidence etc is 100% but what if someone plants it etc tec.
There have been plenty of people put away "beyond reasonable doubt" yet have been proved wrong.
Those cases of cot death spring to mind...
Its theoretically possible to plant DNA, see the link below.
www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1199805.htm
Also a high profile incident happened in the states were a woman who worked in a DNA testing lab (used by the police and FBI) was fired for tampering with samples. No criminal cases were affected, according to the lab, which re-tested the samples themselves (possible conflict of interest here). However, its impossible to say that this was one isolated incident.
Link - www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=334924
Whenever a person is involved, nothing can be stated to be 100% accurate. Doubt always exists, which is why DNA is just one of the many tools used by police forces.
Streetcop said:
All very well until one of your own gets murdered....you'd be suprised at how the most calm and reasonable people who have loved ones killed suddenly turn bloodthirsty...
I dont doubt that at all........but are these people, whilst in that state of mind, the best people to provide an opinion on the merits/demerits of a death sentence.
Surely debate on the death sentence should be made in the emotion-free cold light of day.
Streetcop said:
All very well until one of your own gets murdered....you'd be suprised at how the most calm and reasonable people who have loved ones killed suddenly turn bloodthirsty...
...and does that justify it?
I've never had a close member of family (one of my own) killed, I hope I never will and I can only have an opinion based on what I feel and think now. It's certainly not reasonable to have punishments made up to appease a bloodthirsty mob. What we're talking about here is not punishment, it's revenge.
If someone is found guilty by a jury and executed and subsequently found to be innocent (as will happen), who is responsible for that murder? Who do we put in the dock and exact retribution for the innocently killed party?
I'm not against the death penalty per se but is the chance of killing an innocent person one we can take?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff