Bring Back Hanging

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://wingsoverscotland.com/soapbox-the-hangmans-lottery/

I'm quite keen on this idea - basically, if people are prepared to accept that and innocent person could be hanged, they won't mind taking the chance that it could be them.


The names of everyone who votes “Yes” to the retention or restoration of capital punishment must be recorded and entered into a lottery. Every time a criminal is put to death, a name will be drawn at random from the list and executed alongside them, with no exceptions or appeals.

Or death Lotto Max:


peekay says:
14 February, 2015 at 1:46 pm (http://wingsoverscotland.com/soapbox-the-hangmans-lottery/comment-page-1/#comment-1963202)
Seems a bit extreme…..but with a bit of tweaking you might be onto something. Follow the same process but instead of executing the ‘winner’ have them flick the switch. If the individual turns out to be innocent at a later date then the ‘winner’ goes too



With creativity like this I might be persuaded to vote yes to hanging.

[Scouse Hibee]

Yeah let's go the whole hog and hang the jurors who convict someone later found to be innocent along with the lawyers, judge and Po!ice who made the arrest

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yeah let's go the whole hog and hang the jurors who convict someone later found to be innocent along with the lawyers, judge and Po!ice who made the arrest

So you accept that executing someone is later found to be innocent is a price we have to pay?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Sounds like a good idea to me. The USA are strong on this stuff ... why let a stupid minor detail like the evidence get in the way of a good execution.

[Scouse Hibee]

So you accept that executing someone is later found to be innocent is a price we have to pay?

No I find executing someone found guilty acceptable. I have no time for all of this "what if" pish!

[Scottie]

No I find executing someone found guilty acceptable. I have no time for all of this "what if" pish!
:agree:

[Future17]

It only took 5 posts for me to be extremely confused about where this thread was going, but for what it's worth I'm against any form of execution.

For me, the only situation in which you could be 100% confident in the execution of an individual would be when they had admitted a capital offence and I reckon those occurrences are so rare as to be almost irrelevant.

[Future17]

No I find executing someone found guilty acceptable. I have no time for all of this "what if" pish!

P.S. - I assume you are joking/being sarcastic.

[Sir David Gray]

It only took 5 posts for me to be extremely confused about where this thread was going, but for what it's worth I'm against any form of execution.

For me, the only situation in which you could be 100% confident in the execution of an individual would be when they had admitted a capital offence and I reckon those occurrences are so rare as to be almost irrelevant.

A capital offence just means an offence where the punishment is death. In some countries, witchcraft is a capital offence.

Despite my views being more right wing than most people on here, I am pretty much opposed to capital punishment making a return in this country. Even having one innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit is unacceptable to me and no-one can guarantee that this would never happen.

I couldn't possibly put up any reasonable argument against certain people being executed though. People like those two who murdered Lee Rigby or anyone returning from Iraq and Syria, if it could be proved beyond any doubt that they were in any way involved in the sort of atrocities that we're hearing about on the news regarding Islamic State.

[Phil D. Rolls]

A capital offence just means an offence where the punishment is death. In some countries, witchcraft is a capital offence.

Despite my views being more right wing than most people on here, I am pretty much opposed to capital punishment making a return in this country. Even having one innocent person executed for a crime that they didn't commit is unacceptable to me and no-one can guarantee that this would never happen.

I couldn't possibly put up any reasonable argument against certain people being executed though. People like those two who murdered Lee Rigby or anyone returning from Iraq and Syria, if it could be proved beyond any doubt that they were in any way involved in the sort of atrocities that we're hearing about on the news regarding Islamic State.

Just to keep the thread on track, the question wasn't whether capital punishment is right or wrong.

The question was whether it is right to do it when there is a risk that an innocent person could be executed.


No I find executing someone found guilty acceptable. I have no time for all of this "what if" pish!

I don't know where "what if" comes into it - everybody knows that innocent people have been hanged.

[Hibbyradge]

Just to keep the thread on track, the question wasn't whether capital punishment is right or wrong.

The question was whether it is right to do it when there is a risk that an innocent person could be executed.



I don't know where "what if" comes into it - everybody knows that innocent people have been hanged.

Even if we could be 100% certain that no innocent people would be hanged, we shouldn't reintroduce capital punishment.

[Scouse Hibee]

Innocent people have been hung and convicted murderers have killed again after their release, hang em high. To avoid confusion I am saying yes bring it back.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Even if we could be 100% certain that no innocent people would be hanged, we shouldn't reintroduce capital punishment.

That's another issue though.

My question is really aimed at those who are in favour of the death penalty. I want to know whether they are prepared to accept the risk of an innocent person being executed.

Would they be prepared to accept that risk if it was they or one of their family that got hanged? If not, why not?

[Scouse Hibee]

P.S. - I assume you are joking/being sarcastic.

Never assume.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Innocent people have been hung and convicted murderers have killed again after their release, hang em high. To avoid confusion I am saying yes bring it back.

I'm taking it that you accept the risk of an innocent person being executed then?

Edit: Given that people shouldn't make assumptions, can you just answer my original question? Yes or no - that's all you have to say.

[Scouse Hibee]

I'm taking it that you accept the risk of an innocent person being executed then? Yes or no - that's all you have to say.

Yes.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yes.

So would you accept a scheme where you could be drawn by lottery to be executed, should it be proved that the person hanged was innocent?

Yes/No

[Scouse Hibee]

No

[Scouse Hibee]

Are we suggesting here that the chance of a murder conviction being correct is the same odds as a lottery.

Yes/No

[Phil D. Rolls]

No

How would you feel if somebody you knew was an innocent victim of the death penalty?

[Scouse Hibee]

Pretty pissed but as in my question above more chance of the conviction being sound than a mere lottery, don't you think?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Pretty pissed but as in my question above more chance of the conviction being sound than a mere lottery, don't you think.

Are you saying the risk is low enough to ignore?

[Scouse Hibee]

Any chance you can answer my questions? Yes low enough to ignore and have faith in the justice system. Dead folk can't reoffend.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Any chance you can answer my questions? Yes low enough to ignore and have faith in the justice system. Dead folk can't reoffend.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to dodge your question. I think that any risk that an innocent person could be hanged is too great, and that is why hanging was abolished in the first place.

I think if people are prepared to accept that risk, then they should put their money where their mouth is and agree to be selected at random to atone for the execution of an innocent. That seems like the right thing to do morally.


Are we suggesting here that the chance of a murder conviction being correct is the same odds as a lottery.

Yes/No

Sorry mate - I missed this post.

No.

[Scouse Hibee]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to dodge your question. I think that any risk that an innocent person could be hanged is too great, and that is why hanging was abolished in the first place.

I think if people are prepared to accept that risk, then they should put their money where their mouth is and agree to be selected at random to atone for the execution of an innocent. That seems like the right thing to do morally.

I can't agree with the random lottery stance I'm afraid, I actually think it's a ridiculous idea for reasons I mentioned earlier.
My faith in the justice system to get it right is where I place my bet so to speak, but I accept there are no certainties in life and no system can ever be 100% fool proof. I don't like to use the eye for an eye anology as it's not exactly what I believe in for every case. I do believe that there are unfortunately too many people in this world that cannot be rehabilitated into society and should be punished by death for their crimes. I don't think we will ever see capital punishment reintroduced to this country though. Cheers mate.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I can't agree with the random lottery stance I'm afraid, I actually think it's a ridiculous idea for reasons I mentioned earlier.
My faith in the justice system to get it right is where I place my bet so to speak, but I accept there are no certainties in life and no system can ever be 100% fool proof. I don't like to use the eye for an eye anology as it's not exactly what I believe in for every case. I do believe that there are unfortunately too many people in this world that cannot be rehabilitated into society and should be punished by death for their crimes. I don't think we will ever see capital punishment reintroduced to this country though. Cheers mate.

Fair dos, I'm not so sure about the death penalty not being introduced though. The way politics are in the UK, I can see this as being one of the things that would be offered in a trade off with the likes of UKIP for example.

I think the whole thing about making people accept responsibility for the death of an innocent person, would be a good way to focus their attention on the issues involved. I believe that a lot of pro hanging people haven't thought the thing through.

I think that a random selection of a member of society to attend executions, or to actually pull the lever is less contentious. I would say if society is prepared to kill somebody, it shouldn't be something it can just pass to somebody else.

It might work by keeping a register of those who object to the death penalty. This, in turn, could be used as a record of how many voters are actually in favour. The death penalty would only be allowed when the number of people for it, and prepared to take an active part in the process - as a witness, or executioner - exceeded the number of people against.

[lord bunberry]

Fair dos, I'm not so sure about the death penalty not being introduced though. The way politics are in the UK, I can see this as being one of the things that would be offered in a trade off with the likes of UKIP for example.

I think the whole thing about making people accept responsibility for the death of an innocent person, would be a good way to focus their attention on the issues involved. I believe that a lot of pro hanging people haven't thought the thing through.

I think that a random selection of a member of society to attend executions, or to actually pull the lever is less contentious. I would say if society is prepared to kill somebody, it shouldn't be something it can just pass to somebody else.

It might work by keeping a register of those who object to the death penalty. This, in turn, could be used as a record of how many voters are actually in favour. The death penalty would only be allowed when the number of people for it, and prepared to take an active part in the process - as a witness, or executioner - exceeded the number of people against.

If you're in favour of euthanasia and it turns out the person was coerced into it, does that mean someone should be forced into taking the trip to Switzerland?

[Phil D. Rolls]

If you're in favour of euthanasia and it turns out the person was coerced into it, does that mean someone should be forced into taking the trip to Switzerland?

I think you're talking about assisted suicide, which requires consent from the individual. As opposed to capital punishment which does not give the person being killed any choice at all.

Different debate altogether.

[Allant1981]

In the correct circumstances then id ahree with execution, my 6 year olds sons friend was recently murdered by his mum in the most brutal fashion, why shud she get to live the rest of her life?

[Phil D. Rolls]

In the correct circumstances then id ahree with execution, my 6 year olds sons friend was recently murdered by his mum in the most brutal fashion, why shud she get to live the rest of her life?

There is an argument that we can't risk executing people in case it later turns out they were innocent.

Do you think that is a risk we should have to take to prevent further murders?

[Scouse Hibee]

In the last 20 years how many people convicted of murder have subsequently been found not guilty and released? Any figures on this. Just looking at the likelihood section of my Death Penalty risk assessment.

[Pretty Boy]

In the last 20 years how many people convicted of murder have subsequently been found not guilty and released? Any figures on this. Just looking at the likelihood section of my Death Penalty risk assessment.

I would argue one case would be too many.

However there have been a few miscarriages of justice when it comes to murder in recent years in the UK:

Sally Clark (1996)
The Gurnos Three (1995)
Donna Anthony (1998)
Barry George (2001)
Angela Canning (2002)
Suzanna Holdsworth (2005)
Barri White (2000)

3 of those woman were convicted based primarily on the evidence of one now discredited 'expert'. All 3 were wrongly convicted of killing their own children and one drank herself to death because of her ordeal. Should they just have been seen as collateral damage in this new hard line system being suggested if it meant a few people actually guilty got what they deserved?

[lord bunberry]

I would argue one case would be too many.

However there have been a few miscarriages of justice when it comes to murder in recent years in the UK:

Sally Clark (1996)
The Gurnos Three (1995)
Donna Anthony (1998)
Barry George (2001)
Angela Canning (2002)
Suzanna Holdsworth (2005)
Barri White (2000)

3 of those woman were convicted based primarily on the evidence of one now discredited 'expert'. All 3 were wrongly convicted of killing their own children and one drank herself to death because of her ordeal. Should they just have been seen as collateral damage in this new hard line system being suggested if it meant a few people actually guilty got what they deserved?
Were those 3 women convicted of murder? If not then they wouldn't have been given the death sentence.
I would just like to add that I'm in no way in favour of bringing back the death penalty.

[emerald green]

Sounds like a good idea to me. The USA are strong on this stuff ... why let a stupid minor detail like the evidence get in the way of a good execution.

I find it strange why so many folk seem to want to put the boot into the USA when it comes to this. There are countries around the world with far worse records than the USA, but very few if any seem to want to jump on them.

This country wasn't exactly perfect in this regard either before hanging was abolished here.

[Pretty Boy]

Were those 3 women convicted of murder? If not then they wouldn't have been given the death sentence.
I would just like to add that I'm in no way in favour of bringing back the death penalty.

All 4 women on the list were convicted and then acquited on appeal of murder.

[Scouse Hibee]

I would argue one case would be too many.

However there have been a few miscarriages of justice when it comes to murder in recent years in the UK:

Sally Clark (1996)
The Gurnos Three (1995)
Donna Anthony (1998)
Barry George (2001)
Angela Canning (2002)
Suzanna Holdsworth (2005)
Barri White (2000)

3 of those woman were convicted based primarily on the evidence of one now discredited 'expert'. All 3 were wrongly convicted of killing their own children and one drank herself to death because of her ordeal. Should they just have been seen as collateral damage in this new hard line system being suggested if it meant a few people actually guilty got what they deserved?

Negligable then, cheers.

[Pretty Boy]

I find it strange why so many folk seem to want to put the boot into the USA when it comes to this. There are countries around the world with far worse records than the USA, but very few if any seem to want to jump on them.

This country wasn't exactly perfect in this regard either before hanging was abolished here.

The USA is probably most quoted as it's one of the last 'westernised' countries to still have a death penalty.

As of 2013 it carried out the 6th most executions per annum behind only such stand up countries as Iran, China, Iraq, North Korea and Saudi Arabia.

I find referencing and using the US as an example far more relevant than places in a state of power vacuum like Iraq, an autocratic regime like North Korea or a medieval absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia.

[Pretty Boy]

Negligable then, cheers.

There's more than that and infinitely more if you extend the timeline further than 20 years.

Just to be clear are you not disagreeing that those 9 people dying would have been a price worth paying for bringing back the death penalty?

[Scouse Hibee]

Yeah, natural wastage it's life, the way of the world.

[emerald green]

The USA is probably most quoted as it's one of the last 'westernised' countries to still have a death penalty.

As of 2013 it carried out the 6th most executions per annum behind only such stand up countries as Iran, China, Iraq, North Korea and Saudi Arabia.

I find referencing and using the US as an example far more relevant than places in a state of power vacuum like Iraq, an autocratic regime like North Korea or a medieval absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia.

You might be partially correct regarding the part in bold above, but it should also be remembered that the death penalty only exists in certain states in the USA, not throughout the whole country. I'm not saying that's OK though BTW!

I just get a sense that some seem keen to jump on the USA for all sorts of things (like this subject) but would never dream of mentioning the dreadful regimes in the countries you rightly mention. I just think that's wrong & lazy. Because they are the world's only real super power they are an easy and convenient target it seems.

[Hibrandenburg]

Killing someone is wrong no matter who does it. The only acceptable reason for taking a life is self defence.

[lord bunberry]

All 4 women on the list were convicted and then acquited on appeal of murder.
Thanks. I remember the cases. What happened to the consultant who gave evidence against them?

[Pretty Boy]

Thanks. I remember the cases. What happened to the consultant who gave evidence against them?

He was initially found guilty of gross professional misconduct and struck off. He won an appeal and was reinstated but gave up his registration with the GMC so can't practice anymore.

His big theory was 'Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy' essentially that mothers were inflicting injuries or death on their children for attention rather than themselves. He also said that 'one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and a 3rd is murder until proven otherwise'. That belief led to women who lost two children to the syndrome being imprisoned for murder. His ex wife claimed he saw his 'created condition' everywhere and 'without going into detail was a terrible misogynist who hated women'.

Sounds like a reliable witness.

[Future17]

Surely people who support the use of the death penalty, in the knowledge that the system may result in innocent people being executed, are by definition agreeing to take part in a lottery which might result in their own deaths?

I haven't read the link in the opening post because I know the source and I know it would be a waste of my time, so apologies if this is already covered.

[Sir David Gray]

Just to keep the thread on track, the question wasn't whether capital punishment is right or wrong.

The question was whether it is right to do it when there is a risk that an innocent person could be executed.

I'm sure I answered that question.

[Stranraer]

No human being has the right to take another life, no matter how awful the crime. I hope we don't leave the EU, if we do the far right may be able to bring back this disgusting practice.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Negligable then, cheers.

Percentage wise I'd guess there's still a higher risk than there is of winning my Hangman's Lotto though. :wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Killing someone is wrong no matter who does it. The only acceptable reason for taking a life is self defence.

You could argue that killing a murderer amounts to self defence for society, as there is no chance they will do it again.

[Phil D. Rolls]

He was initially found guilty of gross professional misconduct and struck off. He won an appeal and was reinstated but gave up his registration with the GMC so can't practice anymore.

His big theory was 'Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy' essentially that mothers were inflicting injuries or death on their children for attention rather than themselves. He also said that 'one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and a 3rd is murder until proven otherwise'. That belief led to women who lost two children to the syndrome being imprisoned for murder. His ex wife claimed he saw his 'created condition' everywhere and 'without going into detail was a terrible misogynist who hated women'.

Sounds like a reliable witness.

Sounds like most of psychiatry, which uses created conditions such as personality disorders, as a defence for murder.

What's sauce for the goose.....

[The_Todd]

The death penalty is the sign of an uncivilised society in my view. The Americans get picked on about this because they hold themselves up as some sort of model of civilisation which they seek to impose upon the rest of the world, well if they want to take the role of role model then they should damned well expect thier laws and customs to come under a high degree of scrutiny.

The Death Penalty is nothing more than retribution, not justice. It's not a deterrent, it's simply centuries old biblical "eye for an eye" nonsense.

[silverhibee]

That's another issue though.

My question is really aimed at those who are in favour of the death penalty. I want to know whether they are prepared to accept the risk of an innocent person being executed.

Would they be prepared to accept that risk if it was they or one of their family that got hanged? If not, why not?

What if they are guilty as sin, pled guilty to murder in court, there could be no appeal to them, the two black guys who shot the soldier in London, guilty as, few folk could say that they might be innocent if they were executed for the horrible crime they committed.

Most people who are found guilty by the courts are more than likely guilty, yes there is folk in prison who may be innocent of a crime but there will be doubt in these circumstances where the appeal process kicks in, but most folk are guilty, even though they will tell you, "it wasn't me" when it is clear it was them.

I doubt we will ever see people being sentenced to death in courts in this day and age, but there are some evil folk who deserve it.

[silverhibee]

There is an argument that we can't risk executing people in case it later turns out they were innocent.

Do you think that is a risk we should have to take to prevent further murders?


What if they are caught at the scene, knife in hand, covered in blood, DNA etc etc admit to police when they arrive that they committed the crime and then plead guilty to the crime in court, how could it later on turn out it wasn't them and they were innocent, highly doubtful.

We won't be seeing any death penalties introduced in this country again by any government.

[Phil D. Rolls]

What if they are caught at the scene, knife in hand, covered in blood, DNA etc etc admit to police when they arrive that they committed the crime and then plead guilty to the crime in court, how could it later on turn out it wasn't them and they were innocent, highly doubtful.

We won't be seeing any death penalties introduced in this country again by any government.

There have been some miscarriages of justice where innocent people have been hanged, or would have been hanged if it was still legal.

Should we accept that there will always be a risk of an innocent death as the price we have to pay for having the death penalty?

[Scouse Hibee]

Should we also accept the risk of more innocent people being murdered by folk who have served a prison sentence for murder and then reoffended?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Should we also accept the risk of more innocent people being murdered by folk who have served a prison sentence for murder and then reoffended?

That is the question. I would say "yes" as there are other ways we can control the repeat offender such as a life sentence.

[Scouse Hibee]

That is the question. I would say "yes" as there are other ways we can control the repeat offender such as a life sentence.

If we build more prisons yes, if not no chance at all the prison system could not cope with the volume.

[Scouse Hibee]

In fact one could concede the death sentence as a cost cutting exercise!

[Pretty Boy]

Should we also accept the risk of more innocent people being murdered by folk who have served a prison sentence for murder and then reoffended?

To flip ypur question from earlier how many people in the UK in the last 30 years have been imprisoned for murder, released and the commited another murder?

Given the murder rate has fallen by 40% in 15 years and is at a 36 year low in England and Wales I'd say it must be negligible.

[Scouse Hibee]

To flip ypur question from earlier how many people in the UK in the last 30 years have been imprisoned for murder, released and the commited another murder?

I don't know but surely one is too many.

[Pretty Boy]

I don't know but surely one is too many.

So an innocent person killed by the state is natural wastage but by a repeat offender is one too many?

[Scouse Hibee]

So an innocent person killed by the state is natural wastage but by a repeat offender is one too many?

Yeah pretty much, a killer should never be given the opportunity to kill again.

[Scouse Hibee]

All this sparring is nice but will not change my opinion.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Yeah pretty much, a killer should never be given the opportunity to kill again.

So, if the price of hanging is natural wastage in the form of a Hangman's Lottery, is that a price worth paying?

Low risk that anyone will be found guilty when they aren't. Very small chance of being the person whose name gets pulled out of the hat.

[NAE NOOKIE]

You might be partially correct regarding the part in bold above, but it should also be remembered that the death penalty only exists in certain states in the USA, not throughout the whole country. I'm not saying that's OK though BTW!

I just get a sense that some seem keen to jump on the USA for all sorts of things (like this subject) but would never dream of mentioning the dreadful regimes in the countries you rightly mention. I just think that's wrong & lazy. Because they are the world's only real super power they are an easy and convenient target it seems.

Because of all the countries in the world the US is the one which more than any other holds itself up as the gold standard, where justice for all under the law is enshrined in the written constitution. And yet the statistics clearly show that social status and / or wealth favour the accused, not only in whether or not they are found guilty, but the severity of the sentence if they are.

Worse than that, there are too many well documented cases where subsequent evidence casting enormous reasonable doubt on someone's guilt has been ignored due to bloody minded adherence to procedure, an overriding desire to see someone ( anyone ) pay for the crime, or in some cases pure prejudice.

[Sir David Gray]

Yeah pretty much, a killer should never be given the opportunity to kill again.

I agree with that but surely giving someone a sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of parole gives the same guarantees.

At least with that option, if any new evidence does come to light at a later date which proves someone's innocence, they can be released from prison and can live the rest of their life in freedom.

That's not possible if the person's been executed.

I know that life without parole is generally not something which happens in this country but that's another matter entirely.

[silverhibee]

To flip ypur question from earlier how many people in the UK in the last 30 years have been imprisoned for murder, released and the commited another murder?

Given the murder rate has fallen by 40% in 15 years and is at a 36 year low in England and Wales I'd say it must be negligible.

The brother of Paul Ferris has I'm sure served time for 3 killings at different times in his life.

[Scouse Hibee]

Plenty of time on death row for appeals etc. It's not as if they will be executed directly following the conviction. Rigorous investigations , trials, procedures and appeals all heard. To suggest a random lottery evens that up is laughable it really is.

[emerald green]

Because of all the countries in the world the US is the one which more than any other holds itself up as the gold standard, where justice for all under the law is enshrined in the written constitution. And yet the statistics clearly show that social status and / or wealth favour the accused, not only in whether or not they are found guilty, but the severity of the sentence if they are.

Worse than that, there are too many well documented cases where subsequent evidence casting enormous reasonable doubt on someone's guilt has been ignored due to bloody minded adherence to procedure, an overriding desire to see someone ( anyone ) pay for the crime, or in some cases pure prejudice.

I don't know what the statistics clearly show. What statistics are you referring to? I'm not saying you are wrong as you presumably are able to show what these "statistics" show.

The second bit in bold. That doesn't just happen in the USA. Remember the Birmingham Six, or The Guildford Four for example? There are more, but I can't remember them all off the top of my head. Which country was that?

[Hibrandenburg]

Yeah pretty much, a killer should never be given the opportunity to kill again.

Does that include the state?

[Scouse Hibee]

Does that include the state?


I think you know what I'm saying! If it makes it easier I will use the term convicted murderer but you already know that.

[LaMotta]

The death penalty still exists in the UK.

It is administered by Mi6 to people who know too many dark secrets about people in positions of power.

It might also be administered to someone who has been an embarrasment and nuisance to the royal family.

They just dont want the public to know about it.

[lord bunberry]

The death penalty still exists in the UK.

It is administered by Mi6 to people who know too many dark secrets about people in positions of power.

It might also be administered to someone who has been an embarrasment and nuisance to the royal family.

They just dont want the public to know about it.
How do you know this?

[Pete]

How do you know this?

He could tell you. But then he'd have to kill you.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Plenty of time on death row for appeals etc. It's not as if they will be executed directly following the conviction. Rigorous investigations , trials, procedures and appeals all heard. To suggest a random lottery evens that up is laughable it really is.

You seem to be in denial that there is a strong possibility that someone can be executed when they haven't been murdered. The evidence is all there that they have.

That said, given that we are being asked to accept mistakes in the process, it seems morally right that all those in support of the process accept the risk equally. Feeling guilty about it and saying it won't happen again aren't enough.

There has to be a sacrifice to atone for the mistake, just as there has to be a sacrifice for the murderer's mistake.

At the extreme, that would be picking a random supporter of the death penalty and hanging them. But a workable compromise could be as little as selecting a random supporter to attend the execution of a murderer.

[Stranraer]

To me the whole idea of putting another human being to death is disgusting but I am guessing hanging is the most effective method? I watched a Discovery Channel documentary on the death penalty and there have been quite a few cases of people taking an hour to die with the lethal injection. Am I right in saying that the second drug paralyses the prisoner and the third stops the heart?

[Sir David Gray]

To me the whole idea of putting another human being to death is disgusting but I am guessing hanging is the most effective method? I watched a Discovery Channel documentary on the death penalty and there have been quite a few cases of people taking an hour to die with the lethal injection. Am I right in saying that the second drug paralyses the prisoner and the third stops the heart?

It used to be the case that if the prisoner was to die using the three drug cocktail, the first drug (sodium thiopental) made the person lose consciousness, the second drug (pancuronium bromide) caused muscle paralysis and respiratory failure and the third drug (potassium chloride) caused cardiac arrest and then death.

However European producers of some of these drugs objected to their use in lethal injections and banned them from being sold to the USA.

Some states now use a single drug to execute prisoners (pentobarbital) which causes respiratory failure.

[Stranraer]

It used to be the case that if the prisoner was to die using the three drug cocktail, the first drug (sodium thiopental) made the person lose consciousness, the second drug (pancuronium bromide) caused muscle paralysis and respiratory failure and the third drug (potassium chloride) caused cardiac arrest and then death.

However European producers of some of these drugs objected to their use in lethal injections and banned them from being sold to the USA.

Some states now use a single drug to execute prisoners (pentobarbital) which causes respiratory failure.

:aok: Thank you for that, interesting stuff but gruesome, I couldn't inject another person with a killer drug.

[Peevemor]

To me the whole idea of putting another human being to death is disgusting but I am guessing hanging is the most effective method? I watched a Discovery Channel documentary on the death penalty and there have been quite a few cases of people taking an hour to die with the lethal injection. Am I right in saying that the second drug paralyses the prisoner and the third stops the heart?

I think beheading used to do the job pretty well. :agree:

[Stranraer]

I think beheading used to do the job pretty well. :agree:

True, I was thinking of the methods still used in the USA - gas chamber, electric chair etc.

[LaMotta]

Number of less obvious problems with the death penalty apart from the clear flaw of potentially killing innocent people.

One is the expense because it costs far more to have someone sentenced to death than it does to have them on a normal life sentence. Up to 8 times more expensive according to research in US and is the reason for a number of states abolishing the death penalty.

Secondly the eye for an eye sentencing someone to death for murder would be inconsistent in comparison with all other punishments. Someone who is guilty of a sexual offence wouldnt be sexually assaulted as punishment. An assault charge wouldnt be punished with a good kicking back.

In addition is there any proof that it is more of a deterrent than a life sentence?

Death penalty is more revenge than punishment.

[(((Fergus)))]

The death penalty still exists in the UK.

It is administered by Mi6 to people who know too many dark secrets about people in positions of power.

It might also be administered to someone who has been an embarrasment and nuisance to the royal family.

They just dont want the public to know about it.

I hope you have a secure method of concealing your IP address.

[steakbake]

It's simply a punishment/revenge from yesteryear. I wouldn't want to live in a country that brought back hanging.

It'll remain the political obsession of knee jerk reactionaries till the end of time, but it probably takes more nous to see why it's not the answer to anything.

[Steve-O]

Should we also accept the risk of more innocent people being murdered by folk who have served a prison sentence for murder and then reoffended?

That risk is probably lower than the risk of innocent people being hanged. The vast majority of murderers do not do it again.

[Scouse Hibee]

That risk is probably lower than the risk of innocent people being hanged. The vast majority of murderers do not do it again.

Not so sure about that!

[Geo_1875]

Most killers are not convicted of murder. They usually "get away" with a lesser charge because they didn't intend to kill their victim.

[--------]

He was initially found guilty of gross professional misconduct and struck off. He won an appeal and was reinstated but gave up his registration with the GMC so can't practice anymore.

His big theory was 'Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy' essentially that mothers were inflicting injuries or death on their children for attention rather than themselves. He also said that 'one sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and a 3rd is murder until proven otherwise'. That belief led to women who lost two children to the syndrome being imprisoned for murder. His ex wife claimed he saw his 'created condition' everywhere and 'without going into detail was a terrible misogynist who hated women'.

Sounds like a reliable witness.

He was a classic case of an expert witness who had reached the status of being beyond challenge by the police, by counsel or by other experts who disagreed with him. It really seems to have been a case of 'if he said it, it must be true'. Judges were directing juries to accept his word without question.

His theory meant that any mother who had lost two children to SIDS - Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, aka Cot Death - was assumed by police to be guilty and his testimony was invariably enough to produce that verdict. If it hadn't been for the work of lawyers representing his victims challenging the verdicts in the Appeal Court, he'd still be at it today.

Of course, any woman found guilty of the murder of her child or children gets a very hard time in prison, from both her fellow inmates and from the POs. One of his victims, Sally Clark, committed suicide in 2007, after winning her appeal, having her conviction overturned, and being released. The violent abuse she received in prison HAD left her with severe psychiatric problems. Meadows got off very lightly - with justice (as opposed to law) he should have been jailed.

You could add Trupti Patel to that list. She was another of Meadows' victims.

And I suppose the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven. They were done by Crown 'expert' witnesses as well.

During the first half of the 20th century Sir Bernard Spilsbury was a star expert witness considered by some other forensic pathologists to be quite capable of swearing a defendant's life away on the basis of his own infallibility, especially in cases of poisoning.



I think beheading used to do the job pretty well. :agree:

There's a handy wee device in the museum in Chambers Street that's still in working order, I believe. A whetstone on the blade, new ropes and a bit of grease in the grooves of the drop, and she'd be as right as rain.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/The_Maiden,_National_Museum_of_Scotland.jpg/180px-The_Maiden,_National_Museum_of_Scotland.jpg

Of course we still couldn't guarantee that the police wouldn't stitch someone up, or that the judges would be impartial in their summing-up, or that the witnesses would all be honest and not mistaken, or even that just plain old human stupidity and the effects of Murphy's Law wouldn't conspire to cause miscarriages of justice.

But hey - that's life - who cares? Judicial murder isn't murder at all - not within the meaning of the act, at least.

[over the line]

Number of less obvious problems with the death penalty apart from the clear flaw of potentially killing innocent people.

One is the expense because it costs far more to have someone sentenced to death than it does to have them on a normal life sentence. Up to 8 times more expensive according to research in US and is the reason for a number of states abolishing the death penalty.

Secondly the eye for an eye sentencing someone to death for murder would be inconsistent in comparison with all other punishments. Someone who is guilty of a sexual offence wouldnt be sexually assaulted as punishment. An assault charge wouldnt be punished with a good kicking back.

In addition is there any proof that it is more of a deterrent than a life sentence?

Death penalty is more revenge than punishment.

Whilst we are looking at it from a practical view point, what about the effect on the jury, having to give a verdict that will result in another human being put to death. A lot of people may bottle it (understandably so) and give a not guilty verdict, even though they feel the defendant is guilty. Also it would be a hell of a burden for some people to carry if they gave a guilty verdict, not to mention if the verdict was later found to be wrong!

There would also have to be people employed as executioners, again what a burden for those people.

There would also be dozens of other people duty bound to be involved in facilitating this process and this is likely to have a negative impact on their lives I would think.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Whilst we are looking at it from a practical view point, what about the effect on the jury, having to give a verdict that will result in another human being put to death. A lot of people may bottle it (understandably so) and give a not guilty verdict, even though they feel the defendant is guilty. Also it would be a hell of a burden for some people to carry if they gave a guilty verdict, not to mention if the verdict was later found to be wrong!

There would also have to be people employed as executioners, again what a burden for those people.

There would also be dozens of other people duty bound to be involved in facilitating this process and this is likely to have a negative impact on their lives I would think.

If jurors are selected at random, is it too big a step to select the hangman (or at least the guy that pulls the lever) at random?

[lord bunberry]

Whilst we are looking at it from a practical view point, what about the effect on the jury, having to give a verdict that will result in another human being put to death. A lot of people may bottle it (understandably so) and give a not guilty verdict, even though they feel the defendant is guilty. Also it would be a hell of a burden for some people to carry if they gave a guilty verdict, not to mention if the verdict was later found to be wrong!

There would also have to be people employed as executioners, again what a burden for those people.

There would also be dozens of other people duty bound to be involved in facilitating this process and this is likely to have a negative impact on their lives I would think.
I wouldn't imagine members of the jury having to bear the burden if the defendant was later found to be innocent. Usually they're cleared after fresh evidence comes to light or someone was lying or as in the cases talked about earlier an expert is discredited.

[lord bunberry]

If jurors are selected at random, is it too big a step to select the hangman (or at least the guy that pulls the lever) at random?
We could train animals to do it, or robots

[Phil D. Rolls]

We could train animals to do it, or robots

It's a thought, put the noose round the guys neck, and a sensor could detect he was on the trapdoor.

[LaMotta]

Whilst we are looking at it from a practical view point, what about the effect on the jury, having to give a verdict that will result in another human being put to death. A lot of people may bottle it (understandably so) and give a not guilty verdict, even though they feel the defendant is guilty. Also it would be a hell of a burden for some people to carry if they gave a guilty verdict, not to mention if the verdict was later found to be wrong!

There would also have to be people employed as executioners, again what a burden for those people.

There would also be dozens of other people duty bound to be involved in facilitating this process and this is likely to have a negative impact on their lives I would think.

Good point. In USA, if the death penalty is a prospective sentence in a case, the jury must be a 'death qualified jury'. This means that the members of the jury must be comfortable with the death sentence as a form of punishment.

This means that the Jury would not actually be completely random and is likely to be biased in its make up , more men, and more likely to convict apparently.

[over the line]

Good point. In USA, if the death penalty is a prospective sentence in a case, the jury must be a 'death qualified jury'. This means that the members of the jury must be comfortable with the death sentence as a form of punishment.

This means that the Jury would not actually be completely random and is likely to be biased in its make up , more men, and more likely to convict apparently.



Wow, "death qualified jury" sounds well sinister! I would have serious reservations about a jury that was full of people who have volunteered to make that kind of decision. I bet there are a good few who volunteer to get their "pound of flesh" and have probably made their decision before a word of evidence has been spoken. Scary thought!

[over the line]

If jurors are selected at random, is it too big a step to select the hangman (or at least the guy that pulls the lever) at random?

Selected randomly from the general public, yes too big a step. Imagine getting that letter through your letterbox, I think a change of underwear would be needed! I think it would be fair to say that people would just refuse to do it.

[over the line]

I wouldn't imagine members of the jury having to bear the burden if the defendant was later found to be innocent. Usually they're cleared after fresh evidence comes to light or someone was lying or as in the cases talked about earlier an expert is discredited.

I don't mean the jury would be blamed for an incorrect verdict if at a later date additional evidence proves the case in favour of the defendant. I mean it may prove to be a great personal and emotional burden for the jury members, knowing they played a part in the execution of an innocent person. It's a hell of a thing to have thrust on you isn't it?

[over the line]

Most killers are not convicted of murder. They usually "get away" with a lesser charge because they didn't intend to kill their victim.

If the circumstances of the death and the evidence in the case don't amount to murder, then the defendant shouldn't be convicted of murder.

[Steve-O]

Not so sure about that!

It's true.

We of course hear about serial killers and reoffenders in the media, but that's because it is really quite rare.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Selected randomly from the general public, yes too big a step. Imagine getting that letter through your letterbox, I think a change of underwear would be needed! I think it would be fair to say that people would just refuse to do it.

My argument is that people should be prepared to accept some of the responsibility for the whole process. If they are prepared to accept the risk that miscarriages of justice will happen, then it isn't too much to ask that they carry the risk that they may play an active part in it.

It's too easy to pass all responsibility to the state. After all the people who have chosen capital punishment are part of the state.

[Andy74]

My argument is that people should be prepared to accept some of the responsibility for the whole process. If they are prepared to accept the risk that miscarriages of justice will happen, then it isn't too much to ask that they carry the risk that they may play an active part in it.

It's too easy to pass all responsibility to the state. After all the people who have chosen capital punishment are part of the state.

No, that doesn't make sense.

Under this method every convicted murderer who gets put to death is joined by an innocent person.

In the case of mistaken identity or failure of the justice system then there is an occassional innocent person who may be put to death wrongly. That in itself is the chance we take in accepting the system. however, we put measures in place, don't we? We have a criminal justice system and we appoint people to adminster that. They can sometimes get that wrong, as a society its our responsibility to monitor that and limit the instances.

A system where every correct conviction is none the less met with an equal innocent person being put to death, no, sorry. I get the responsibity point you are trying to make the solution is badly thought out.

Are you prepared for every measure that we have decided in society to take to have an action that mist also be taken against someone who supports it? Should every jail sentence be matched with a lottery winner as well?

No, we take responsibility by being part of the democratic process to oversee and decide the measures that society takes.

It can be wrong sometimes, but it has to go very wrong across a number of levels before it impacts an innocent person. That is miles away from your proposal.

[snooky]

What if they are caught at the scene, knife in hand, covered in blood, DNA etc etc admit to police when they arrive that they committed the crime and then plead guilty to the crime in court, how could it later on turn out it wasn't them and they were innocent, highly doubtful.

We won't be seeing any death penalties introduced in this country again by any government.


In other words, if it looks like *****, smells like *****, and feels like ***** then very likely it is *****.

But, there's always that little element of doubt, isn't there?

Ach, never mind. Hang 'em anyway. :stirrer:

[Phil D. Rolls]

No, that doesn't make sense.

Under this method every convicted murderer who gets put to death is joined by an innocent person.

In the case of mistaken identity or failure of the justice system then there is an occassional innocent person who may be put to death wrongly. That in itself is the chance we take in accepting the system. however, we put measures in place, don't we? We have a criminal justice system and we appoint people to adminster that. They can sometimes get that wrong, as a society its our responsibility to monitor that and limit the instances.

A system where every correct conviction is none the less met with an equal innocent person being put to death, no, sorry. I get the responsibity point you are trying to make the solution is badly thought out.

Are you prepared for every measure that we have decided in society to take to have an action that mist also be taken against someone who supports it? Should every jail sentence be matched with a lottery winner as well?

No, we take responsibility by being part of the democratic process to oversee and decide the measures that society takes.

It can be wrong sometimes, but it has to go very wrong across a number of levels before it impacts an innocent person. That is miles away from your proposal.

Ok, how about people in favour of hanging saying they are confident enough to put themselves into a pool of potential victims? Any time there is a bone fide mistake leading to an execution, they risk being selected to be executed in atonement.

if they are confident that there won't be miscarriages of justice they surely wouldn't mind being in the hat?

The difference between hanging someone and sending them to jail is obvious. In the case of extreme measures like the death penalty people should be prepared to commit to it absolutely.

The execution of a random innocent victim should focus minds on how desirable the death penalty is.

[Scouse Hibee]

It's a crazy proposal draw people out of a hat! It's as if you're suggesting that the justice system has no more chance of getting it right than a lottery. It's a ridiculous notion in my opinion.

[HappyAsHellas]

Last year in England a suspected criminal was acquitted because the judge had to dismiss the jury for asking an improper question. The reasons for this are that the jury is instructed on what it can or cannot do. This jury proved they understood nothing and so the case was thrown out. This jury was picked, if you like, in a similar fashion to a lottery. The point being, if you approve of the death penalty, do you then think it's unfair to have some form of involvement employing a similar system ?

[Andy74]

Ok, how about people in favour of hanging saying they are confident enough to put themselves into a pool of potential victims? Any time there is a bone fide mistake leading to an execution, they risk being selected to be executed in atonement.

if they are confident that there won't be miscarriages of justice they surely wouldn't mind being in the hat?

The difference between hanging someone and sending them to jail is obvious. In the case of extreme measures like the death penalty people should be prepared to commit to it absolutely.

The execution of a random innocent victim should focus minds on how desirable the death penalty is.

No. Still crazily out of proportion.

[Future17]

Ok, how about people in favour of hanging saying they are confident enough to put themselves into a pool of potential victims? Any time there is a bone fide mistake leading to an execution, they risk being selected to be executed in atonement.

if they are confident that there won't be miscarriages of justice they surely wouldn't mind being in the hat?

The difference between hanging someone and sending them to jail is obvious. In the case of extreme measures like the death penalty people should be prepared to commit to it absolutely.

The execution of a random innocent victim should focus minds on how desirable the death penalty is.


It's a crazy proposal draw people out of a hat! It's as if you're suggesting that the justice system has no more chance of getting it right than a lottery. It's a ridiculous notion in my opinion.

I said this earlier on this thread, so apologies for repeating myself, but I don't understand part of this debate:

If people who support the use of the death penalty accept that the system may result in innocent people being executed, surely they are already agreeing to take part in a lottery which might result in their own deaths? :confused:

[Phil D. Rolls]

It's a crazy proposal draw people out of a hat! It's as if you're suggesting that the justice system has no more chance of getting it right than a lottery. It's a ridiculous notion in my opinion.

This would only come into play in the event of a miscarriage of justice. If the chances of that happening are so low, it would be a mere technicality to be on the list of people to be selected for atonement.

So it is surely academic that the lotto exists. Otherwise, what are people scared of?

[Phil D. Rolls]

No. Still crazily out of proportion.

What, more crazy than accepting a system which will almost certainly result in an innocent person being executed, if it runs long enough?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I said this earlier on this thread, so apologies for repeating myself, but I don't understand part of this debate:

If people who support the use of the death penalty accept that the system may result in innocent people being executed, surely they are already agreeing to take part in a lottery which might result in their own deaths? :confused:

Yes, but they also force people who don't believe in the death penalty to take part in the same lottery. If the person hanged is a believer in capital punishment, then it's Karma. But what about the people who don't believe in it - how do you balance things up for them?

[Scouse Hibee]

I said this earlier on this thread, so apologies for repeating myself, but I don't understand part of this debate:

If people who support the use of the death penalty accept that the system may result in innocent people being executed, surely they are already agreeing to take part in a lottery which might result in their own deaths? :confused:

To me a lottery means that your chance of success is entirely down to chance,there are no other factors involved what so ever.
This in no way equates to the justice system,verdicts are not pulled out of a hat like a lottery ticket so I don't agree with your logic.

[Phil D. Rolls]

To me a lottery means that your chance of success is entirely down to chance,there are no other factors involved what so ever.
This in no way equates to the justice system,verdicts are not pulled out of a hat like a lottery ticket so I don't agree with your logic.

It's not the verdict that's pulled out of the hat, it's the victim.

[Scouse Hibee]

It's not the verdict that's pulled out of the hat, it's the victim.

Eh! Exactly my point, it just doesn't equate.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Eh! Exactly my point, it just doesn't equate.

The Lord Chancellor's Department's statistics on successful appeals against criminal conviction show that in the decade 1989-1999 the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) abated over 8,470 criminal convictions - a yearly average of 770. (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jul/28/ukcrime.prisonsandprobation)

These will not all be capital cases, of course. But fundamental doubt there (albeit 13 years old) about the reliability of convictions.

I think that the risk of being hanged for something you didn't do is too great to justify hanging. I don't support hanging as a result.

You think the risk is so minimal that hanging someone by mistake is something we can all live with.

If it's something that people can live with, it's not asking too much for them to put their money where their mouth is and take part in the lottery. From what you are saying, the chances of getting fitted up and hanged for something you didn't do are negligible.

I know it's a 1/20,000,000 chance that you'd be drawn from the hat to do the execution. Sorry, I can't come up for stats for the UK, but I did read that something like 1/25 of death row inmates in the US are thought to be innocent. Much higher chance of being sent to the gallows for something you didn't do, than being selected at random from your peers to take part in an execution.

Those figures seem to go in favour of people who want to bring capital punishment. So, with so little chance of being the person selected, it's surely a case of cowardice on the hanging supporters' part?

[steakbake]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31578422

Here's someone that would have been put to death. And he's not even got any compensation for the 8 years he was in prison after being fitted up, simply because he was the local weirdo.

Still, it's a lottery eh? You win some, you lose some and I'm sure had Barry been given the noose, it'd have reduced the murder rate.

[Andy74]

What, more crazy than accepting a system which will almost certainly result in an innocent person being executed, if it runs long enough?

Your system would have an innocent person executed every single time a gulity person gets executed.

[lord bunberry]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31578422

Here's someone that would have been put to death. And he's not even got any compensation for the 8 years he was in prison after being fitted up, simply because he was the local weirdo.

Still, it's a lottery eh? You win some, you lose some and I'm sure had Barry been given the noose, it'd have reduced the murder rate.
I saw him on TV this morning. How can it be that the state can wrongly put you in prison for 8 years and then tell you you're not entitled to any compensation? They got the wrong man and ruined his life, they should compensate him.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Your system would have an innocent person executed every single time a gulity person gets executed.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I propose that a random person be selected to take part in the execution. At an extreme I would argue that an innocent person only be put to death IF
there was a case of an innocent person being executed.

If I wrote it so that it reads differently (or even if that is exactly what I wrote) I apologise.

The main thing is that people who are prepared to accept the risk of an innocent person being hanged, should be prepared to accept the miniscule risk (ie that so few people who are found guilty of murder are innocent, x the chances of being drawn at random to pay the ultimate price).

[Future17]

Yes, but they also force people who don't believe in the death penalty to take part in the same lottery. If the person hanged is a believer in capital punishment, then it's Karma. But what about the people who don't believe in it - how do you balance things up for them?

I don't think it would necessarily be Karma at all - that seems like a strange suggestion, but perhaps I just don't understand the point you're trying to make?

I also don't understand the point about balancing it up. You've started a thread asking whether people who support the death penalty would be prepared to take part in a lottery which might result in them dying if there was a miscarriage of justice. I've said they are essentially one and the same thing.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I don't think it would necessarily be Karma at all - that seems like a strange suggestion, but perhaps I just don't understand the point you're trying to make?

I also don't understand the point about balancing it up. You've started a thread asking whether people who support the death penalty would be prepared to take part in a lottery which might result in them dying if there was a miscarriage of justice. I've said they are essentially one and the same thing.

I am saying people who support the death penalty should be prepared to accept that there is a risk that an innocent person will hang. I am interested in whether people feel that they should be prepared to show a commitment to the process.

It would be karma if someone accepted that other people could be hanged when they are innocent, and then find that they are one of those people.

[Bristolhibby]

You might be partially correct regarding the part in bold above, but it should also be remembered that the death penalty only exists in certain states in the USA, not throughout the whole country. I'm not saying that's OK though BTW!

I just get a sense that some seem keen to jump on the USA for all sorts of things (like this subject) but would never dream of mentioning the dreadful regimes in the countries you rightly mention. I just think that's wrong & lazy. Because they are the world's only real super power they are an easy and convenient target it seems.

A Federal crime that carries the death penalty will see you killed, so theoretically it is USA wide.

Off the top of my head the Omaha Bomber was tried, convicted and executed under Fedral Law.

J

[Bristolhibby]

Wow, "death qualified jury" sounds well sinister! I would have serious reservations about a jury that was full of people who have volunteered to make that kind of decision. I bet there are a good few who volunteer to get their "pound of flesh" and have probably made their decision before a word of evidence has been spoken. Scary thought!

That is terrifying!

J

[Andy74]

I am saying people who support the death penalty should be prepared to accept that there is a risk that an innocent person will hang. I am interested in whether people feel that they should be prepared to show a commitment to the process.

It would be karma if someone accepted that other people could be hanged when they are innocent, and then find that they are one of those people.

The point is we could be one of those people just now and if you support the death penalty you would support that there should be a criminal justice system in place to try and ensure that miscarriages of justice are at a minimum or non existent. There is a small chance if all goes wrong it could be you. We all live in that world already if we support any type of penalty at all for criminal activity.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The point is we could be one of those people just now and if you support the death penalty you would support that there should be a criminal justice system in place to try and ensure that miscarriages of justice are at a minimum or non existent. There is a small chance if all goes wrong it could be you. We all live in that world already if we support any type of penalty at all for criminal activity.

I accept that. But capital punishment is different from other sentences in that there is no way that you can make amends for the victim of the miscarriage. Just as it is a unique punishment, used only for one offence, then unique safeguards should be built in.

[Steve-O]

I saw him on TV this morning. How can it be that the state can wrongly put you in prison for 8 years and then tell you you're not entitled to any compensation? They got the wrong man and ruined his life, they should compensate him.

There is a similar case here where the guy did about 13 years, verdict was quashed, he went through a retrial, was found not guilty, however when it comes to compensation, he has to prove his innocence.

The not guilty verdict means he was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty verdict does not = categorically did not commit the crime. It's a tricky one!

[lord bunberry]

There is a similar case here where the guy did about 13 years, verdict was quashed, he went through a retrial, was found not guilty, however when it comes to compensation, he has to prove his innocence.

The not guilty verdict means he was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty verdict does not = categorically did not commit the crime. It's a tricky one!
As far as I'm aware the police are satisfied that George didn't do it as they're currently following other lines of enquiry. If they then catch the real killer does that mean George is entitled to compensation? The way I read it was he wasn't entitled to compensation because the jury convicted him on the evidence that was available at the time.

[HappyAsHellas]

I accept that. But capital punishment is different from other sentences in that there is no way that you can make amends for the victim of the miscarriage. Just as it is a unique punishment, used only for one offence, then unique safeguards should be built in.

In Saudi they are firm believers in "bearing false witness" which means that if you are found out to have lied or distorted evidence to secure a conviction, you then get the same punishment that was meted out to the "culprit". Quite a sobering thought I would imagine, especially in a case which could lead to the death penalty.

[Phil D. Rolls]

In Saudi they are firm believers in "bearing false witness" which means that if you are found out to have lied or distorted evidence to secure a conviction, you then get the same punishment that was meted out to the "culprit". Quite a sobering thought I would imagine, especially in a case which could lead to the death penalty.

I think lying to secure somebody's execution is the same thing as murder.

[over the line]

There is a similar case here where the guy did about 13 years, verdict was quashed, he went through a retrial, was found not guilty, however when it comes to compensation, he has to prove his innocence.

The not guilty verdict means he was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty verdict does not = categorically did not commit the crime. It's a tricky one!

The burden of proof for civil court is lower, it is on the balance of probability, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, as it is in criminal court. Any compo claim would be in a civil court, where they may deem someone is more likely to have committed an offence than not. I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but this could be part of the reason. Just because a crime can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't mean it can't be proved on the balance of probability.

But its a good example of how dodgey the death sentence could be.

[lord bunberry]

The burden of proof for civil court is lower, it is on the balance of probability, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, as it is in criminal court. Any compo claim would be in a civil court, where they may deem someone is more likely to have committed an offence than not. I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but this could be part of the reason. Just because a crime can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't mean it can't be proved on the balance of probability.

But its a good example of how dodgey the death sentence could be.
If the police are following different lines of enquiry(as they are in the Jill Dando case) surely that's evidence in itself that the police think he's innocent.

[over the line]

If the police are following different lines of enquiry(as they are in the Jill Dando case) surely that's evidence in itself that the police think he's innocent.

Yes it could well do, but its not whether the police think that is important really. The important decisions are made in the court after a trial. The police just gather evidence, whether it proves or equally disproves something. It would be interesting to see if the lines of enquiry lead to another person being prosecuted.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I don't know what the statistics clearly show. What statistics are you referring to? I'm not saying you are wrong as you presumably are able to show what these "statistics" show.

The second bit in bold. That doesn't just happen in the USA. Remember the Birmingham Six, or The Guildford Four for example? There are more, but I can't remember them all off the top of my head. Which country was that?

Examples would have been a better word than statistics I suppose. There have been a few TV programmes highlighting examples of people executed on evidence which would never have stood up in this county and 5 minutes on Google finds plenty to be concerned about.

I didn't say it was only the USA .... but my post was in response to someone asking why the USA is used as an example in this subject.

[--------]

There is a similar case here where the guy did about 13 years, verdict was quashed, he went through a retrial, was found not guilty, however when it comes to compensation, he has to prove his innocence.

The not guilty verdict means he was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty verdict does not = categorically did not commit the crime. It's a tricky one!


But historically both Scots and English criminal law has worked on the principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty - beyond reasonable doubt.

I now there have been cases where the police would say that they knew for a certainty who committed the murder, but their failure to prove their case meant that the murderer went free. Miscarriages of justice work both ways; however, the idea of an innocent man or woman being convicted and executed for a murder they didn't commit isn't one to be taken lightly. The judicial process even at its best can't get it right every time; it's a system constructed by human beings, and such systems will always be fallible.

But any reading of past history - there have been plenty of examples quoted in this thread already - suggests that in many cases miscarriages of justice occur when the police, for whatever reason, fail to do their work properly. In prominent and emotive cases like the Guildford bombings, or the murder of children, the pressure on the police to 'solve the crime' is huge, and police officers do sometimes cut corners to achieve a conviction.

They don't subject the evidence before them to proper scrutiny before taking it to court.

They accept the opinions of 'expert' witnesses as infallible when they in fact are nothing more than untested theory, or sloppy and inaccurate work considered satisfactory because it supports the police case.

They have on occasion coached witnesses, suppressed or failed to disclose important evidence to the defence, even on occasion manufactured evidence in order to secure a conviction which was never going to happen without someone perjuring themselves in the witness box.

This is why the return of the death penalty would be unacceptable to me and many others. Just because we don't kill people by law any longer doesn't mean that when the law gets it wrong in a murder case it doesn't do horrendous damage to the life of the wrongly-convicted accused.

Read 'Stolen Innocence' - the account of the Sally Clark case - and weep. A young woman who had lost two children through no fault of her own was accused of their murders and convicted on the testimony of a seriously-flawed 'expert' witness in a case where the police certainly did not do their jobs properly or conscientiously. In prison the warders conspired with the other prisoners to make her life hell, and succeeded so well in this that she simply could not cope with life even after her conviction was quashed and she was released to freedom. Even though some of her fellow-prisoners supported and protected her, the damage done was immense. She basically took her own life in the end.

Three other young women suffered similar injustice at the hands of the same witness and comparably questionable police work. They aren't dead, but that's not the point. All four would be dead if the law permitted execution. And no proponent of execution really wants JUST the 'death penalty' - they want the executee to suffer.

A few years back Michael Portillo did a BBC2 documentary on the death penalty - looking deliberately for a method of execution that wouldn't be excluded by the US constitution's forbidding 'cruel and unusual punishment'.

Hanging, electrocution, garroting, the gas chamber, even lethal injection all had failed the test, but he discovered that death by hypoxia - the gradual deprivation of oxygen to the human brain - brought certain death without pain. Indeed death by hypoxia actually brings on feelings of euphoria: no pain, no fear. Just certain death.

He suggested this to a leading US activist in favour of execution, and the guy rejected it outright. The executee (who in his view was always the right guy/gal and guilty as sin) had to SUFFER or it wasn't justice.

So I'd guess that 'ca[ital punishment' really isn't 'the death penalty'. It's the death by torture penalty, and even an expert hangman like Albert Pierrepoint couldn't guarantee anything more than that he would do all he could to make it quick and relatively painless.

And when Pierrepoint wrote his memoirs, he made it crystal clear that he had come to believe that capital punishment was really just the public desire for revenge -an eye (any eye) for an eye; a tooth (any tooth) for a tooth. Didn't really matter to most folks whose eyes and teeth were sacrificed.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Pistol shots ring out in the barroom night
Enter Patty Valentine from the upper hall
She sees the bartender in a pool of blood
Cries out, “My God, they killed them all!”
Here comes the story of the Hurricane
The man the authorities came to blame
For somethin’ that he never done
Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been
The champion of the world
Three bodies lyin’ there does Patty see
And another man named Bello, movin’ around mysteriously
“I didn’t do it,” he says, and he throws up his hands
“I was only robbin’ the register, I hope you understand
I saw them leavin’,” he says, and he stops
“One of us had better call up the cops”
And so Patty calls the cops
And they arrive on the scene with their red lights flashin’
In the hot New Jersey night
Meanwhile, far away in another part of town
Rubin Carter and a couple of friends are drivin’ around
Number one contender for the middleweight crown
Had no idea what kinda **** was about to go down
When a cop pulled him over to the side of the road
Just like the time before and the time before that
In Paterson that’s just the way things go
If you’re black you might as well not show up on the street
’Less you wanna draw the heat
Alfred Bello had a partner and he had a rap for the cops
Him and Arthur Dexter Bradley were just out prowlin’ around
He said, “I saw two men runnin’ out, they looked like middleweights
They jumped into a white car with out-of-state plates”
And Miss Patty Valentine just nodded her head
Cop said, “Wait a minute, boys, this one’s not dead”
So they took him to the infirmary
And though this man could hardly see
They told him that he could identify the guilty men
Four in the mornin’ and they haul Rubin in
Take him to the hospital and they bring him upstairs
The wounded man looks up through his one dyin’ eye
Says, “Wha’d you bring him in here for? He ain’t the guy!”
Yes, here’s the story of the Hurricane
The man the authorities came to blame
For somethin’ that he never done
Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been
The champion of the world
Four months later, the ghettos are in flame
Rubin’s in South America, fightin’ for his name
While Arthur Dexter Bradley’s still in the robbery game
And the cops are puttin’ the screws to him, lookin’ for somebody to blame
“Remember that murder that happened in a bar?”
“Remember you said you saw the getaway car?”
“You think you’d like to play ball with the law?”
“Think it might-a been that fighter that you saw runnin’ that night?”
“Don’t forget that you are white”
Arthur Dexter Bradley said, “I’m really not sure”
Cops said, “A poor boy like you could use a break
We got you for the motel job and we’re talkin’ to your friend Bello
Now you don’t wanta have to go back to jail, be a nice fellow
You’ll be doin’ society a favor
That sonofabitch is brave and gettin’ braver
We want to put his ass in stir
We want to pin this triple murder on him
He ain’t no Gentleman Jim”
Rubin could take a man out with just one punch
But he never did like to talk about it all that much
It’s my work, he’d say, and I do it for pay
And when it’s over I’d just as soon go on my way
Up to some paradise
Where the trout streams flow and the air is nice
And ride a horse along a trail
But then they took him to the jailhouse
Where they try to turn a man into a mouse
All of Rubin’s cards were marked in advance
The trial was a pig-circus, he never had a chance
The judge made Rubin’s witnesses drunkards from the slums
To the white folks who watched he was a revolutionary bum
And to the black folks he was just a crazy ******
No one doubted that he pulled the trigger
And though they could not produce the gun
The D.A. said he was the one who did the deed
And the all-white jury agreed
Rubin Carter was falsely tried
The crime was murder “one,” guess who testified?
Bello and Bradley and they both baldly lied
And the newspapers, they all went along for the ride
How can the life of such a man
Be in the palm of some fool’s hand?
To see him obviously framed
Couldn’t help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land
Where justice is a game
Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties
Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise
While Rubin sits like Buddha in a ten-foot cell
An innocent man in a living hell
That’s the story of the Hurricane
But it won’t be over till they clear his name
And give him back the time he’s done
Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been
The champion of the world


Read more: http://www.bobdylan.com/us/songs/hurricane#ixzz3SsnezPuY

[HibsMax]

Sounds like a good idea to me. The USA are strong on this stuff ... why let a stupid minor detail like the evidence get in the way of a good execution.
Not all of the USA. The death penalty is only an option in a few states and not everyone is as into the death penalty as some would believe.


So would you accept a scheme where you could be drawn by lottery to be executed, should it be proved that the person hanged was innocent?

Yes/No
No, and that's a ridiculous question. The answer to executing an innocent person would be to execute another innocent person? That takes "two wrongs don't make a right" to the extreme.


How would you feel if somebody you knew was an innocent victim of the death penalty?
If you KNEW someone was innocent, how does nobody else know?

I know I am missing a lot more of the discussion but I only got this far by the time I felt like I wanted to reply. :) Perhaps the wrong debate but, for me, the only people who would be executed are those guilty of specific crimes and those whose guilt is beyond a shadow of a doubt. The issue here is that then we have a two tier situation for e.g., murderers. You will have some murderers who are sentence to death and other sentenced to life imprisonment. That plants a seed of doubt because if the punishment for murder is death, why are there people serving life? If you don't have enough evidence to sentence someone to death, do you have enough to keep them locked up for the rest of their life? Tricky problems surround this topic but I still believe there are certain criminals who deserve to / should die - Jeffery Dahmer (sp?) would be one such example. Not much doubt there.

[HibsMax]

No human being has the right to take another life, no matter how awful the crime. I hope we don't leave the EU, if we do the far right may be able to bring back this disgusting practice.
Just curious if this extends to war as well?

Personally I disagree. If I saw some guy walking down the street with a huge knife attacking women and children, I think I would be perfectly within the bounds of acceptable behaviour by stepping and and stopping him, even if that means ending his life.

[HibsMax]

The death penalty is the sign of an uncivilised society in my view. The Americans get picked on about this because they hold themselves up as some sort of model of civilisation which they seek to impose upon the rest of the world, well if they want to take the role of role model then they should damned well expect thier laws and customs to come under a high degree of scrutiny.

The Death Penalty is nothing more than retribution, not justice. It's not a deterrent, it's simply centuries old biblical "eye for an eye" nonsense.
It's not all of America, just some states.

I hear the argument "it's not a deterrent" all the time. How do you know? Sure, it doesn't deter 100% of the population from committing capital crimes but how high would the crime rate be if there was no capital punishment at all? We don't know, all we can do is assume. We could compare murder rates between states with the death penalty vs those that do not, but that's not really a level playing field. Every state is different and has its own problems. The only way you could really test this is to have two identical civilizations with one minor difference - the death penalty, but such an experiment is next to impossible to conduct.

[HibsMax]

In fact one could concede the death sentence as a cost cutting exercise!
Except people will tell you that the appeals process if hugely expensive. I don't disagree, I just don't have the facts at my fingertips.

[HibsMax]

Good point. In USA, if the death penalty is a prospective sentence in a case, the jury must be a 'death qualified jury'. This means that the members of the jury must be comfortable with the death sentence as a form of punishment.

This means that the Jury would not actually be completely random and is likely to be biased in its make up , more men, and more likely to convict apparently.

The collection of jurors is always random but once you get to the courthouse you have to play all sort of games before you actually end up on the jury. You are asked all sorts of questions and depending on your answers you could be dismissed. There's more to it than that but that's the summary based on my near miss serving on a jury (they filled the jury before my number was called).

[HibsMax]

Wow, "death qualified jury" sounds well sinister! I would have serious reservations about a jury that was full of people who have volunteered to make that kind of decision. I bet there are a good few who volunteer to get their "pound of flesh" and have probably made their decision before a word of evidence has been spoken. Scary thought!
You don't volunteer to be on a jury.

[HibsMax]

My argument is that people should be prepared to accept some of the responsibility for the whole process. If they are prepared to accept the risk that miscarriages of justice will happen, then it isn't too much to ask that they carry the risk that they may play an active part in it.

It's too easy to pass all responsibility to the state. After all the people who have chosen capital punishment are part of the state.
Serving on a jury is not voluntary so the jurors should not have to be prepared to accept anything.

[HibsMax]

Ok, how about people in favour of hanging saying they are confident enough to put themselves into a pool of potential victims? Any time there is a bone fide mistake leading to an execution, they risk being selected to be executed in atonement.

if they are confident that there won't be miscarriages of justice they surely wouldn't mind being in the hat?

The difference between hanging someone and sending them to jail is obvious. In the case of extreme measures like the death penalty people should be prepared to commit to it absolutely.

The execution of a random innocent victim should focus minds on how desirable the death penalty is.
The whole debate here is, I think, about preventing innocent people being put to death so how does adding an innocent person into the mix make things any better?

[HibsMax]

A Federal crime that carries the death penalty will see you killed, so theoretically it is USA wide.

Off the top of my head the Omaha Bomber was tried, convicted and executed under Fedral Law.

J
What you are talking about there are federal crimes such as treason. The Feds are not going to force a state to execute a murderer unless that person has done something pretty extreme. The prosecution has to push for it as well.

I think it's a fairer statement to say that, generally speaking, capital punishment is administered at the state level except in very exceptional circumstances.

[HibsMax]

In Saudi they are firm believers in "bearing false witness" which means that if you are found out to have lied or distorted evidence to secure a conviction, you then get the same punishment that was meted out to the "culprit". Quite a sobering thought I would imagine, especially in a case which could lead to the death penalty.
THIS I can get on board with. The bold part being very important (and potentially difficult to prove). I don't think we should be punishing people for making genuine mistakes.

[HibsMax]

If the police are following different lines of enquiry(as they are in the Jill Dando case) surely that's evidence in itself that the police think he's innocent.
or they might just be following up on every lead to make sure they aren't making any mistakes?

[over the line]

You don't volunteer to be on a jury.

I know that, but the poster I was responding to had suggested that once you had been selected for jury service, you could put yourself forward for consideration for a murder trial, thus volunteering to make a decision on a death sentence. So in that sense they are volunteering for a very specific type of jury and that I find scary.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The whole debate here is, I think, about preventing innocent people being put to death so how does adding an innocent person into the mix make things any better?

It doesn't, but if that was a risk that was inherent in capital punishment, people might think more carefully about whether they want it.

My argument is that there is always a risk that an innocent person will be executed. If society think that risk is acceptable, they should be prepared to take a share of it. If they don't accept the small risk of being drawn from a ballot, they can't morally expect others to.

If everybody was in favour of the death penalty, it wouldn't be a problem. So, why not have a register of those in favour?

You say my ideas are crazy, but so is a system which seeks to deter and atone, by doing the thing that they are condemning. If it's an eye for an eye for murder, it should be an eye for an eye if an innocent person is executed.

[Phil D. Rolls]

or they might just be following up on every lead to make sure they aren't making any mistakes?

Any more mistakes you mean? They've already been responsible for one miscarriage of justice.

A major criticism of the of the way police conduct enquiries is that they ignore evidence which doesn't support their case against their prime suspect.

They focus all their energies on securing a conviction. That system works well, but it also has a major hole in it, because they find it hard to turn around once they follow a particular line of enquiry.

Think of how they went up a blind alley searching for the Yorkshire Ripper. They wasted three years looking for a man with a Geordie accent. This actuall led to Sutcliffe being let go - all the evidence pointed to him, but he had the wrong accent.

[HibsMax]

I know that, but the poster I was responding to had suggested that once you had been selected for jury service, you could put yourself forward for consideration for a murder trial, thus volunteering to make a decision on a death sentence. So in that sense they are volunteering for a very specific type of jury and that I find scary.

I can't comment on the UK system but over here you are called to the courthouse and you wait. You could get dismissed right away if there are no cases being heard that day or there could be a bunch of cases that are being heard and you get assigned to one of them. A group from the jury pool is taken to the courtroom and there you are questioned, as a group, answering by a show of hands.

There is no decision making on the part of the potential juror. What you can do, from what I witnessed, is basically answer every question asked by the judge in a manner that all but guarantees you will be dismissed e.g., "Do you distrust the police?", "Do you hold any bias that makes you unsuitable for this case?". etc.

Since the trial I was at was for physical abuse and since I live in Massachusetts I was not asked about the death penalty. I can imagine that you are asked about how comfortable you feel about finding a person guilty of a crime that could carry the death penalty, and if you can be dismissed from a jury for that very reason then I understand the point you're making. One can only hope that even if a person is comfortable finding a defendant guilty knowing that it could mean they die, that they can also exercise solid judgment and take great care weighing up all the evidence before casting their vote. I do know what you're saying and I would also find it worrying, even if I was innocent, facing a jury with blood on their minds.

[HibsMax]

It doesn't, but if that was a risk that was inherent in capital punishment, people might think more carefully about whether they want it.

My argument is that there is always a risk that an innocent person will be executed. If society think that risk is acceptable, they should be prepared to take a share of it. If they don't accept the small risk of being drawn from a ballot, they can't morally expect others to.

If everybody was in favour of the death penalty, it wouldn't be a problem. So, why not have a register of those in favour?

You say my ideas are crazy, but so is a system which seeks to deter and atone, by doing the thing that they are condemning. If it's an eye for an eye for murder, it should be an eye for an eye if an innocent person is executed.

I understand all of that and I guess the issue with this debate, for me, is that I am living in a ideal world where only people guilty of very serious crimes are punished with such extreme measures. I'm talking about a guarantee that no innocent person will ever be put to death. I understand that sounds absurd when you consider all the innocent people who have been released from prison, but a part of me believes that there are certain criminals for whom this punishment fits like a glove (may as well pop in an OJ reference). ;)

[HibsMax]

Any more mistakes you mean? They've already been responsible for one miscarriage of justice.

A major criticism of the of the way police conduct enquiries is that they ignore evidence which doesn't support their case against their prime suspect.

They focus all their energies on securing a conviction. That system works well, but it also has a major hole in it, because they find it hard to turn around once they follow a particular line of enquiry.

Think of how they went up a blind alley searching for the Yorkshire Ripper. They wasted three years looking for a man with a Geordie accent. This actuall led to Sutcliffe being let go - all the evidence pointed to him, but he had the wrong accent.

Agreed, the system is flawed but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to make it better. I would not advocate the use of the death penalty unless there were assurances in place that prevents innocent people from being convicted and ultimately executed.

It's a tough problem. I know that some people don't like the death penalty because it's more revenge than anything else. I'm not so much interested in revenge (I bet I would be if the case personally affected me) but making sure that a criminal cannot commit the same crime again. Life behind bars almost achieves that but they can still commit more crime from within prison (although who cares about criminal on criminal crime?)

I suppose if I am talking about a Utopian world I should be suggesting a program of research and rehabilitation that actually works and rehabilitates people rather than punishing them. Maybe we can learn from these people and identify measures to stop future crimes being committed by similar individuals, and if we can rehabilitate them, get some free / cheap labour from them while we're at it.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Agreed, the system is flawed but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim to make it better. I would not advocate the use of the death penalty unless there were assurances in place that prevents innocent people from being convicted and ultimately executed.

It's a tough problem. I know that some people don't like the death penalty because it's more revenge than anything else. I'm not so much interested in revenge (I bet I would be if the case personally affected me) but making sure that a criminal cannot commit the same crime again. Life behind bars almost achieves that but they can still commit more crime from within prison (although who cares about criminal on criminal crime?)

I suppose if I am talking about a Utopian world I should be suggesting a program of research and rehabilitation that actually works and rehabilitates people rather than punishing them. Maybe we can learn from these people and identify measures to stop future crimes being committed by similar individuals, and if we can rehabilitate them, get some free / cheap labour from them while we're at it.

Personally I don't agree with the death penalty. However, I'd accept the will of the majority of people. The majority of the people would have to accept that there was a risk in executing people though. I think the proposal that they share that risk would focus minds on whether it is a good idea to have it or not.

What I keep coming back to is the fact that public opinion went against capital punishment in the 50s for a good reason. Miscarriages of justice since then seem to confirm that the issues have not been properly addressed, and due to the fact that human nature is a factor in those miscarriages, is unlikely ever to be satisfactorily solved.

If we view hanging as "nothing but revenge", we have to acknowledge that people seeking revenge rarely think clearly, or fairly.

[gringojoe]

First story on BBC News tonight was about a young girl being murdered and chopped up and 7 people arrested for the crime. After a fair trail and if found guilty death sentence seems fair. Second story on BBC News was about sexual abuse of children again if found guilty death sentence seems fair.

[emerald green]

I suspect (I admit I've no evidence, this is just based on things I observe and overhear) that if an opinion poll was taken today in the UK to try to get some measure on whether people would, or would not, be in favour of the death penalty for "Jihadi John" there would be a huge majority in favour.

Just saying. I don't know what the answer is as far as the rights and wrongs of the death penalty. There are good arguments either way.

I try not to get involved in these contentious debates, but I'm just interested in the comments on this one.

[Stranraer]

First story on BBC News tonight was about a young girl being murdered and chopped up and 7 people arrested for the crime. After a fair trail and if found guilty death sentence seems fair. Second story on BBC News was about sexual abuse of children again if found guilty death sentence seems fair.

This made me feel physically sick and I feel like a hypocrite because although I oppose the death penalty if someone did that to a member of my family I may take the law into my own hands.

[Prof. Shaggy]

Any chance you can answer my questions? Yes low enough to ignore and have faith in the justice system. Dead folk can't reoffend.

That may be where the trouble starts....

[Hibrandenburg]

Killing someone in the name of the state makes that state no better than the killer themselves. Self defence or self preservation are the only acceptable reasons to kill.

[snooky]

Killing someone in the name of the state makes that state no better than the killer themselves. Self defence or self preservation are the only acceptable reasons to kill.

One could argue that the elimination of proven killers comes under the 'self preservation' umbrella. :dunno:

[Hibrandenburg]

One could argue that the elimination of proven killers comes under the 'self preservation' umbrella. :dunno:

You could try but it doesn't wash.

[Phil D. Rolls]

First story on BBC News tonight was about a young girl being murdered and chopped up and 7 people arrested for the crime. After a fair trail and if found guilty death sentence seems fair. Second story on BBC News was about sexual abuse of children again if found guilty death sentence seems fair.

Would it be fair if someone was framed for the crimes and then hanged?

[gringojoe]

Would it be fair if someone was framed for the crimes and then hanged?

Would that be a fair trial if they were framed?

[snooky]

Would that be a fair trial if they were framed?

Put Lt Columbo on the case. :cb

[Phil D. Rolls]

Would that be a fair trial if they were framed?

No, but they'd still be dead.

[Future17]

Would that be a fair trial if they were framed?

Probably depends how they were framed. If someone did a good job of framing the person, they could still get a fair trial and be convicted.

[HibsMax]

Killing someone in the name of the state makes that state no better than the killer themselves. Self defence or self preservation are the only acceptable reasons to kill.

Say you come home and are hit on the head as you walk through the door. You wake up and find yourself tied to a chair in a room with your family. A man proceeds to systematically rape and torture your wife and children before killing them, while you sit helpless, unable to do anything to protect them.

The man then unties you, hands you a telephone & a gun and sits down in the chair you were just sitting in.

Do you call the police or shoot him dead?

People might say that the above is an absurd, extreme example. Absurd, extreme examples are what I am suggesting we save the death penalty for.

Sorry for the horrible scenario I painted, I would never wish that on anyone.

[HibsMax]

You could try but it doesn't wash.
Can you explain why it doesn't wash? Simply saying "it doesn't wash" doesn't strengthen your argument to me. Let's say that you are witnessing a crime and it seems certain that someone is about to be killed. You have the opportunity to save that person but in doing so you are likely going to have to kill the other person. That seems like a pretty good case of defence, it's just not self-defence.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Say you come home and are hit on the head as you walk through the door. You wake up and find yourself tied to a chair in a room with your family. A man proceeds to systematically rape and torture your wife and children before killing them, while you sit helpless, unable to do anything to protect them.

The man then unties you, hands you a telephone & a gun and sits down in the chair you were just sitting in.

Do you call the police or shoot him dead?

People might say that the above is an absurd, extreme example. Absurd, extreme examples are what I am suggesting we save the death penalty for.

Sorry for the horrible scenario I painted, I would never wish that on anyone.

It's a very good analogy. I don't see the problem in executing somebody if there is a clear and present threat to life. However, if further deaths could be prevented by incarceration, I'd go for that option - based on my previous concerns about miscarriages of justice.

The other thing about execution, is how can we morally ask someone to do the job? The history of hanging in the UK includes a lot of young men who ended up mentally damaged after volunteering to be hang men.

[HibsMax]

Would it be fair if someone was framed for the crimes and then hanged?
It stops being fair as soon as someone is framed, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

[HibsMax]

It's a very good analogy. I don't see the problem in executing somebody if there is a clear and present threat to life. However, if further deaths could be prevented by incarceration, I'd go for that option - based on my previous concerns about miscarriages of justice.

The other thing about execution, is how can we morally ask someone to do the job? The history of hanging in the UK includes a lot of young men who ended up mentally damaged after volunteering to be hang men.

I believe in incarceration if the system works and people are actually rehabilitated. What is the point in locking someone up for the rest of their life with no chance of parole? If we could take these men and women and turn them into productive members of society then I would be all for that.

EDIT: This could probably be boiled down to:
Killing someone to prevent a crime
- vs -
Killing someone for committing a crime

The argument could be that killing someone AFTER the crime has been committed does not prevent the original crime from being committed, but it does prevent them from ever committing that crime again. It's definitely a tight rope.

[Hibrandenburg]

Say you come home and are hit on the head as you walk through the door. You wake up and find yourself tied to a chair in a room with your family. A man proceeds to systematically rape and torture your wife and children before killing them, while you sit helpless, unable to do anything to protect them.

The man then unties you, hands you a telephone & a gun and sits down in the chair you were just sitting in.

Do you call the police or shoot him dead?

People might say that the above is an absurd, extreme example. Absurd, extreme examples are what I am suggesting we save the death penalty for.

Sorry for the horrible scenario I painted, I would never wish that on anyone.

There and then I'd take a stab and say definitely yes but I'd be as guilty of murder as he is. After a period of time and a trial is a different kettle of fish altogether. All in all I'd say there are many out there who deserve to die for the crimes they commit but nobody, and I include the state in that nobody, has the right to take another person's life.

The fallibility of the judicial system is another argument all together but it only strengthens the case for not re-establishing the death penalty.

[Hibrandenburg]

Can you explain why it doesn't wash? Simply saying "it doesn't wash" doesn't strengthen your argument to me. Let's say that you are witnessing a crime and it seems certain that someone is about to be killed. You have the opportunity to save that person but in doing so you are likely going to have to kill the other person. That seems like a pretty good case of defence, it's just not self-defence.

Ok I'll give you that, defence of a third party I could also accept in certain circumstances.

[HibsMax]

There and then I'd take a stab and say definitely yes but I'd be as guilty of murder as he is. After a period of time and a trial is a different kettle of fish altogether. All in all I'd say there are many out there who deserve to die for the crimes they commit but nobody, and I include the state in that nobody, has the right to take another person's life.

The fallibility of the judicial system is another argument all together but it only strengthens the case for not re-establishing the death penalty.
I'll ask the question I asked earlier, does this mean you are opposed to war since soldiers have to kill other humans, directly or indirectly.

It's not an easy topic to nail down as it all depends on the circumstances. You're right, if I was to kill the person who killed my wife and children, it would be murder because they're dead and all I am doing is acting out revenge. However, let's say that I break free of my bindings, get out the chair and beat that man to a bloody pulp, stone dead. Is that murder or is it self-defence? If I kill him BEFORE he kills them, it's self-defence. If I kill him AFTER he kills them, it's murder? There's something about that that doesn't sit well with me.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'll ask the question I asked earlier, does this mean you are opposed to war since soldiers have to kill other humans, directly or indirectly.

It's not an easy topic to nail down as it all depends on the circumstances. You're right, if I was to kill the person who killed my wife and children, it would be murder because they're dead and all I am doing is acting out revenge. However, let's say that I break free of my bindings, get out the chair and beat that man to a bloody pulp, stone dead. Is that murder or is it self-defence? If I kill him BEFORE he kills them, it's self-defence. If I kill him AFTER he kills them, it's murder? There's something about that that doesn't sit well with me.


I think we're deviating too far from the original subject now. There's a world of difference between human emotion leading to reactionary reprisal and a state carrying out premeditated murder. I would like to think I live in a society that values human rights more than those who disregard them. If our society is to prevail then we need to be as a collective better than the worst of the individual.

[steakbake]

I think we're deviating too far from the original subject now. There's a world of difference between human emotion leading to reactionary reprisal and a state carrying out premeditated murder. I would like to think I live in a society that values human rights more than those who disregard them. If our society is to prevail then we need to be as a collective better than the worst of the individual.

Great post.

Society is not the victim's helpless relative tied to the chair, acting out of emotion. It is the cold application of the law. There's no place for reaction killings. Justice has to be blind - not eye for an eye.

By the logic of acting out of emotion, we should bypass the relatively slow legal process. I mean, we're upset - we demand redress now, so no need for due process of law.

[Hibrandenburg]

Great post.

Society is not the victim's helpless relative tied to the chair, acting out of emotion. It is the cold application of the law. There's no place for reaction killings. Justice has to be blind - not eye for an eye.

By the logic of acting out of emotion, we should bypass the relatively slow legal process. I mean, we're upset - we demand redress now, so no need for due process of law.

More eloquently put than my attempt.

[HibsMax]

I think we're deviating too far from the original subject now. There's a world of difference between human emotion leading to reactionary reprisal and a state carrying out premeditated murder. I would like to think I live in a society that values human rights more than those who disregard them. If our society is to prevail then we need to be as a collective better than the worst of the individual.
Deviating.....you're probably right, but it's hard to remove emotion from this. I mean, the scenarios we're talking about.....I can't even imagine what would be going through my head. Forgiveness? Probably not so much. And if I was there to bear witness to the act? I would probably take matters into my own hands because I doubt I would be thinking straight and I would want to make sure this person pays for their crime in the harshest possible way. Even though I believe prisons should be about rehabilitation rather than revenge / punishment, let's not forget that people are supposed to be punished for their crimes, and sometimes the punishment deserves to be harsh.

(Off-topic: if you have followed the story about the woman who was gang raped on bus in India in 2012 (she died from her injuries) then you will probably have read some comments made by the alleged rapists. Look into it for yourself and decide what fate you think they deserve).

It's an interesting debate and contrary to what some might believe, I've held these beliefs long since before I came to the USA - I'm not tainted :-).

Let me pose a tricky dilemma. Let's say that you come home and disturb an intruder, he's attacking your wife. Would it be OK to kill him to protect her? I'm going to assume that most people would answer with an emphatic YES (assuming that there is no alternative). You attack him but you fail to subdue him. He knocks you out and kills your wife before fleeing. He gets caught, tried and found guilty of murder. Would it be OK for the state to execute him? Based on your replies I am going to assume NO. Now for the tricky question. If at some point it is OK to kill the intruder, then some time later (after trial) it's NOT ok to kill him, where is the line? At what point does lethal force cease being an acceptable option? It seems to me that we're talking about a matter of seconds; that as soon as your wife is dead, the intruder's life has been saved because any attempt to take his life would be attempted murder (it can't be self-defence at that point, she's already dead).

Again, I know I am talking about pretty specific scenarios but that's exactly what this debate needs. Each case is unique and should be looked at independently. I don't think there is one rule fits all situation here.

[HibsMax]

Great post.

Society is not the victim's helpless relative tied to the chair, acting out of emotion. It is the cold application of the law. There's no place for reaction killings. Justice has to be blind - not eye for an eye.

By the logic of acting out of emotion, we should bypass the relatively slow legal process. I mean, we're upset - we demand redress now, so no need for due process of law.

It was just an example, not a suggestion for how the legal system should be over-hauled.

[over the line]

I can't comment on the UK system but over here you are called to the courthouse and you wait. You could get dismissed right away if there are no cases being heard that day or there could be a bunch of cases that are being heard and you get assigned to one of them. A group from the jury pool is taken to the courtroom and there you are questioned, as a group, answering by a show of hands.

There is no decision making on the part of the potential juror. What you can do, from what I witnessed, is basically answer every question asked by the judge in a manner that all but guarantees you will be dismissed e.g., "Do you distrust the police?", "Do you hold any bias that makes you unsuitable for this case?". etc.

Since the trial I was at was for physical abuse and since I live in Massachusetts I was not asked about the death penalty. I can imagine that you are asked about how comfortable you feel about finding a person guilty of a crime that could carry the death penalty, and if you can be dismissed from a jury for that very reason then I understand the point you're making. One can only hope that even if a person is comfortable finding a defendant guilty knowing that it could mean they die, that they can also exercise solid judgment and take great care weighing up all the evidence before casting their vote. I do know what you're saying and I would also find it worrying, even if I was innocent, facing a jury with blood on their minds.

I just don't agree with the death sentence at all, so I suppose I just mistrust anyone or any process that facilitates it really. I think it is strange that different states in the US do and don't have the death penalty. You would think that it would be a national governmental decision, with it being such a huge decision. The fact that a made up state line in the dirt decides if you are to be executed or not, for the same offence, just seems crazy. I'm assuming there must be street that straddle the boundaries of two states in places? And which side of the street you commit an offence could decide if you are executed or not...........bit weird don't you think?

[HibsMax]

I just don't agree with the death sentence at all, so I suppose I just mistrust anyone or any process that facilitates it really. I think it is strange that different states in the US do and don't have the death penalty. You would think that it would be a national governmental decision, with it being such a huge decision. The fact that a made up state line in the dirt decides if you are to be executed or not, for the same offence, just seems crazy. I'm assuming there must be street that straddle the boundaries of two states in places? And which side of the street you commit an offence could decide if you are executed or not...........bit weird don't you think?

It's not as weird as you think when you take a step back and look at the US. The US is not much different from the UK. There are UK laws and there are Scottish laws. In the US, there is federal law and state law. There is federal tax and state tax. There is federal government and state government. You can smoke pot recreationally without fear in certain states....well, not quite, you won't get into trouble with the state but the feds could leap in at any time. Different states have differing age limits for driving. They used to have different age limits for drinking but changed many years ago. Some states allow same-sex marriage, others don't. The death penalty is just another example of how different states govern themselves.

Across here people have differing opinions on government. Some people don't want a federal government at all, let the state figure out things on their own. You can think of each state as an independent country to a certain extent. Maybe that makes the US more like the EU, not sure?

Maybe you mentioned this before and I apologise if I'm making you repeat yourself. Are you against the death penalty because you are afraid of the wrong person being executed, or because you have a fundamental belief that killing anyone is wrong? I think that's an important question because if it's the former, could you be persuaded to agree with it if there was a new, improved system that guaranteed no innocent people would ever be incarcerated / executed?

I'm not a killer, I don't even like killing animals by accident but I have no issues in seeing monsters pay for their crimes with their own lives.

[HiBremian]

It's not as weird as you think when you take a step back and look at the US. The US is not much different from the UK. There are UK laws and there are Scottish laws. In the US, there is federal law and state law. There is federal tax and state tax. There is federal government and state government. You can smoke pot recreationally without fear in certain states....well, not quite, you won't get into trouble with the state but the feds could leap in at any time. Different states have differing age limits for driving. They used to have different age limits for drinking but changed many years ago. Some states allow same-sex marriage, others don't. The death penalty is just another example of how different states govern themselves.

Across here people have differing opinions on government. Some people don't want a federal government at all, let the state figure out things on their own. You can think of each state as an independent country to a certain extent. Maybe that makes the US more like the EU, not sure?

Maybe you mentioned this before and I apologise if I'm making you repeat yourself. Are you against the death penalty because you are afraid of the wrong person being executed, or because you have a fundamental belief that killing anyone is wrong? I think that's an important question because if it's the former, could you be persuaded to agree with it if there was a new, improved system that guaranteed no innocent people would ever be incarcerated / executed?

I'm not a killer, I don't even like killing animals by accident but I have no issues in seeing monsters pay for their crimes with their own lives.

It all sounds so straight-forward, doesn't it. Death penalty for monsters. Yet the impression I get from the various cases from the USA that reach social media is that we are often not talking about "monsters" at all, but troubled individuals. "Monsters" is a classic Murdoch concept used to whip people up - and sell cheap news. Gays can be "monsters" in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iraq or Nigeria who if caught by the legal system can be condemned to death. So my opposition to the death penalty is not so much my own moral position, but what states can and do use it for, including the USA. They develop their moral crusades based on their own, often highly dubious, morals. To take an example from the other end of the "killer" spectrum, what of all the deaths on our roads caused by motorists with the SMIDSY (Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You) syndrome? In our culture that's regarded as just "an accident". But what if government was to take road death somewhat more seriously? Do the arguments about taking someone else's life still apply as a guide to punishment?

[over the line]

It's not as weird as you think when you take a step back and look at the US. The US is not much different from the UK. There are UK laws and there are Scottish laws. In the US, there is federal law and state law. There is federal tax and state tax. There is federal government and state government. You can smoke pot recreationally without fear in certain states....well, not quite, you won't get into trouble with the state but the feds could leap in at any time. Different states have differing age limits for driving. They used to have different age limits for drinking but changed many years ago. Some states allow same-sex marriage, others don't. The death penalty is just another example of how different states govern themselves.

Across here people have differing opinions on government. Some people don't want a federal government at all, let the state figure out things on their own. You can think of each state as an independent country to a certain extent. Maybe that makes the US more like the EU, not sure?

Maybe you mentioned this before and I apologise if I'm making you repeat yourself. Are you against the death penalty because you are afraid of the wrong person being executed, or because you have a fundamental belief that killing anyone is wrong? I think that's an important question because if it's the former, could you be persuaded to agree with it if there was a new, improved system that guaranteed no innocent people would ever be incarcerated / executed?

I'm not a killer, I don't even like killing animals by accident but I have no issues in seeing monsters pay for their crimes with their own lives.

I just don't think the death penalty is an effective deterrent, that is one of my main reason for disliking it as a method of punishment. It doesn't seem to have prevented the ridiculous amount of murders they have in the US states that use it. I also think that society should be better than the murderers, I just don't think it sends out the right message. The state is saying that killing someone in an act of pure revenge is ok, and IMO it just isn't.

I am all for a robust law and order system, with severe punishment for serious and persistent offenders (I really think we have gone far too soft in this country) but executing people just seems so barbaric and pointless.

I haven't given a lot of thought to the whole 'wrong person executed' side of this debate, as I think it is so wrong even for the 'right person' to be executed.

I've been a bit surprised really at how many on here seem to be in favour of it.

[Hibrandenburg]

I just don't think the death penalty is an effective deterrent, that is one of my main reason for disliking it as a method of punishment. It doesn't seem to have prevented the ridiculous amount of murders they have in the US states that use it. I also think that society should be better than the murderers, I just don't think it sends out the right message. The state is saying that killing someone in an act of pure revenge is ok, and IMO it just isn't.

I am all for a robust law and order system, with severe punishment for serious and persistent offenders (I really think we have gone far too soft in this country) but executing people just seems so barbaric and pointless.

I haven't given a lot of thought to the whole 'wrong person executed' side of this debate, as I think it is so wrong even for the 'right person' to be executed.

I've been a bit surprised really at how many on here seem to be in favour of it.

The statistics in the USA alone are mind boggling, an average of 87 people are killed every day just with firearms. Add to that knife crime, poisoning and other violent crimes you have an incredible amount of potential death sentence material. Even if you put the error margin at a measly 1% for judicial error you end up potentially executing hundreds of innocent people every year. That's a price too high to pay for revenge.

[over the line]

The statistics in the USA alone are mind boggling, an average of 87 people are killed every day just with firearms. Add to that knife crime, poisoning and other violent crimes you have an incredible amount of potential death sentence material. Even if you put the error margin at a measly 1% for judicial error you end up potentially executing hundreds of innocent people every year. That's a price too high to pay for revenge.

Absolutely right that the potential of hundreds (or dozens, several or what ever) of innocent people being executed every year makes the death penalty a ridiculous and unacceptable risk. But even putting that to one side, society sanctioning the revenge killing of guilty people is just wrong.

On slightly different angle, imagine how much harder it would be for the authorities (police, courts, prison) to deal with offenders that knew they were going to be executed. I wonder how many police officers get killed in the US by people who are wanted for murder and know they are doomed and therefore have nothing to lose.

[Hibrandenburg]

Absolutely right that the potential of hundreds (or dozens, several or what ever) of innocent people being executed every year makes the death penalty a ridiculous and unacceptable risk. But even putting that to one side, society sanctioning the revenge killing of guilty people is just wrong.

On slightly different angle, imagine how much harder it would be for the authorities (police, courts, prison) to deal with offenders that knew they were going to be executed. I wonder how many police officers get killed in the US by people who are wanted for murder and know they are doomed and therefore have nothing to lose.

Agree with you 100% that execution is simply wrong and has no place in civilized society, I was merely pointing out that miscarriages of justice are likely to be more than the one or two people seem to think is the case as this would appear to be the route this discussion is taking.

[over the line]

Agree with you 100% that execution is simply wrong and has no place in civilized society, I was merely pointing out that miscarriages of justice are likely to be more than the one or two people seem to think is the case as this would appear to be the route this discussion is taking.

Yes I agree. Don't you think its a bit worrying that some people think that even a hand full of errors is acceptable? What if they were one of the errors, or one of their loved ones. They would view it differently then I'm sure.

[HibsMax]

It all sounds so straight-forward, doesn't it. Death penalty for monsters. Yet the impression I get from the various cases from the USA that reach social media is that we are often not talking about "monsters" at all, but troubled individuals. "Monsters" is a classic Murdoch concept used to whip people up - and sell cheap news. Gays can be "monsters" in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iraq or Nigeria who if caught by the legal system can be condemned to death. So my opposition to the death penalty is not so much my own moral position, but what states can and do use it for, including the USA. They develop their moral crusades based on their own, often highly dubious, morals. To take an example from the other end of the "killer" spectrum, what of all the deaths on our roads caused by motorists with the SMIDSY (Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You) syndrome? In our culture that's regarded as just "an accident". But what if government was to take road death somewhat more seriously? Do the arguments about taking someone else's life still apply as a guide to punishment?

I don't really know what other people use the term "monster" for but I have my own ideas. I certainly don't consider gay people to be monsters, not unless they also happen to kidnap, torture, rape and eat young men. I realise you were giving that as an example. There's little doubt that a person has to be troubled to perform those acts in the first place but if we extend that all the way then we don't have criminals at all, we just have troubled people who, for one reason or another, can't live in a society with civility. Maybe they were abused as children. Maybe they grew up poor. Bullied at school. There are any number of triggers that shape our lives. Some people deal with them better than others. In an ideal world we would be able to fix everyone who is broken and, more importantly, prevent them from getting broken in the first place.

Do you have any examples of where the USA applies the death penalty using dubious morals? I did a quick search and came up with >>>this (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty)<<< list of capital crimes in the US. The crimes listed are mostly murder with kidnapping and hijacking making an appearance also. This is quite interesting:
California - First-degree murder with special circumstances; sabotage; train wrecking causing death; treason; perjury causing execution of an innocent person; fatal assault by a prisoner serving a life sentence.
Idaho has a similar clause.

I don't see any dubious morals being applied in that list. I don't think we can talk about the other countries you listed above as I assumed we were talking about Western Civilised countries. You can't really compare living in Saudi Arabia with the US or the UK.


As for motor vehicle accidents, I think that's quite different. The important word being, "accident". Again this needs to be looked at on a case by case basis. Was the driver drunk? Speeding? Driving recklessly? Did they run a red light? Were they texting? Some people should, and are, charged with vehicular homicide. Maybe the person hit a patch of ice, skidded, crossed the median strip and hit another car head on. I don't think people should be punished as severely for accidents.

[HibsMax]

I just don't think the death penalty is an effective deterrent, that is one of my main reason for disliking it as a method of punishment. It doesn't seem to have prevented the ridiculous amount of murders they have in the US states that use it. I also think that society should be better than the murderers, I just don't think it sends out the right message. The state is saying that killing someone in an act of pure revenge is ok, and IMO it just isn't.

I am all for a robust law and order system, with severe punishment for serious and persistent offenders (I really think we have gone far too soft in this country) but executing people just seems so barbaric and pointless.

I haven't given a lot of thought to the whole 'wrong person executed' side of this debate, as I think it is so wrong even for the 'right person' to be executed.

I've been a bit surprised really at how many on here seem to be in favour of it.

I can't argue the deterrent side of things because that's hard to prove for reasons I've mentioned earlier in this thread - we don't know who is deterred, it's not like there's been a poll, "Would you be more or less likely to murder if there was no death penalty in your state?". It's true that the death penalty does not prevent all murders but it might prevent some. The problem is, how do count all the murders that didn't take place because the person was fearful of the repercussions? I also think a lot of people who commit these crimes aren't thinking at all, and / or they are confident they won't get caught so the penalty doesn't even matter. It's also hard to keep track of statistics because patterns change over time. There is a lot of gang-related crime stemming from the influx of central and south Americans. That issue did not exist a few decades ago. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that it is a deterrent because I can't prove that it is. I just happen to believe that it prevents some people. One prevented murder is enough, especially if you are the potential victim.

If you think that executing a mass murderer is pointless, what point would you make out of the remainder of their life? Keep them behind bars for the next 50 years? What does that achieve?

Again, I am not advocating killing everyone but reserving this sentence for specific cases. I mean, an abused woman who snaps and stabs her husband to death does not deserve the same punishment as a man who murders children. Ultimately it's the same crime - murder - but the situations are completely different. In the first case the woman isn't a murderer, she's a frightened woman who's been pushed beyond her limits. In the other case we have a perverted sadist.

[HibsMax]

The statistics in the USA alone are mind boggling, an average of 87 people are killed every day just with firearms. Add to that knife crime, poisoning and other violent crimes you have an incredible amount of potential death sentence material. Even if you put the error margin at a measly 1% for judicial error you end up potentially executing hundreds of innocent people every year. That's a price too high to pay for revenge.
Can you break that down? How many are murders, accidents, police action, suicide, etc?

If 1% = hundreds then you're saying that there are 10's of thousands of murders in the USA every year. I did a quick search and found this statistic from the FBI for 2013:


There were an estimated 14,196 murders last year.

If ALL of those people were caught and sentenced to death, and if 1% of those convictions were wrong, that would be 142 innocent people. However, even though you say "measly" I think 1% is a very high number of incorrect convictions for crimes of this type. I know that innocent people have been incarcerated but I will need to do more research into finding out how many innocent people have been executed. Those who say, "one is too many", I agree with you.

[HibsMax]

Absolutely right that the potential of hundreds (or dozens, several or what ever) of innocent people being executed every year makes the death penalty a ridiculous and unacceptable risk. But even putting that to one side, society sanctioning the revenge killing of guilty people is just wrong.

On slightly different angle, imagine how much harder it would be for the authorities (police, courts, prison) to deal with offenders that knew they were going to be executed. I wonder how many police officers get killed in the US by people who are wanted for murder and know they are doomed and therefore have nothing to lose.
The potential might be hundreds or thousands but what is the reality of the situation? How many people have been executed and how many have later been found to be innocent? I understand and agree that one is too many, but I'm not foaming at the mouth to execute everyone. My point which is being missed is I myself am in favour of the death penalty within a flawless system. We can argue all you want about how we implement such a system but that is not my argument.

Not an argument (because I know where this would go) but thousands of innocent people die every year in car accidents. We still drive. There is no movement to have all cars limited to 20mph. However, innocent driver's lives are not deemed important enough for there to be something done about the risk they expose themselves every time they hit the road. Why do we accept that a certain percentage of our drivers are going to die on a yearly basis when there is so much we could do to prevent that from happening? Again, this is apples and oranges and I don't want to get into a death penalty vs driving argument because they are two very different topics, with a tiny bit of overlap - that being the risk of innocent people being killed.


I don't think the police's job gets any harder, they shoot first and ask questions later already.

[over the line]

I can't argue the deterrent side of things because that's hard to prove for reasons I've mentioned earlier in this thread - we don't know who is deterred, it's not like there's been a poll, "Would you be more or less likely to murder if there was no death penalty in your state?". It's true that the death penalty does not prevent all murders but it might prevent some. The problem is, how do count all the murders that didn't take place because the person was fearful of the repercussions? I also think a lot of people who commit these crimes aren't thinking at all, and / or they are confident they won't get caught so the penalty doesn't even matter. It's also hard to keep track of statistics because patterns change over time. There is a lot of gang-related crime stemming from the influx of central and south Americans. That issue did not exist a few decades ago. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that it is a deterrent because I can't prove that it is. I just happen to believe that it prevents some people. One prevented murder is enough, especially if you are the potential victim.

If you think that executing a mass murderer is pointless, what point would you make out of the remainder of their life? Keep them behind bars for the next 50 years? What does that achieve?

Again, I am not advocating killing everyone but reserving this sentence for specific cases. I mean, an abused woman who snaps and stabs her husband to death does not deserve the same punishment as a man who murders children. Ultimately it's the same crime - murder - but the situations are completely different. In the first case the woman isn't a murderer, she's a frightened woman who's been pushed beyond her limits. In the other case we have a perverted sadist.

I agree that an abused woman who snaps and a child killer are very different cases that should be (and are) dealt with differently in court and in punishment method/severity. Obviously the latter would be much easier to make a case for execution, even so I still don't agree with it. The death sentence wouldn't deter a child killer (as proven in the US) and won't prevent the snapping of an abused woman would it?

In a civilised society, killing someone should always be a last resort, such as in extreme self defence, or in an unavoidable war scenario. It certainly shouldn't be in an act of controlled and planned revenge, sanctioned by society. Surely we are better than that aren't we?

[HibsMax]

Agree with you 100% that execution is simply wrong and has no place in civilized society, I was merely pointing out that miscarriages of justice are likely to be more than the one or two people seem to think is the case as this would appear to be the route this discussion is taking.

I'll answer you as if you were addressing me with "one or two people" (I don't know if you were or not).

My story is not changing. I am in favour of the death penalty as a punishment within a system that guarantees that an innocent person won't be executed. This argument is about the death penalty, not the perfect system, so I don't need to give you my 10-year plan for how we get there. :-) The types of crime that would meet the criteria would not simply be "murder" but that's where it would start. There would have to be specifics about the crime that make the punishment fitting. That already happens. Not every murderer gets the same sentence. This would be no different.

If you want to take a man who has habitually kidnapped, tortured, sex assaulted boys and girls for the past two decades and put them in prison for the rest of his life, I have to ask you why? What part does he take in society? He would never be accepted. He wouldn't be accepted in prison either and would have to be housed in one of the special AdSeg blocks for his own protection. We end up spending more resources protecting this POS. Again, why?

Yes, the picture I have just painted is very dark but that's exactly the point, the punishment should be reserved for the worst of the worst. If that means that only one person is executed every ten years, so be it.

[HibsMax]

Yes I agree. Don't you think its a bit worrying that some people think that even a hand full of errors is acceptable? What if they were one of the errors, or one of their loved ones. They would view it differently then I'm sure.
When you say "some people", who are you talking about? I don't agree with them either.

[HibsMax]

I agree that an abused woman who snaps and a child killer are very different cases that should be (and are) dealt with differently in court and in punishment method/severity. Obviously the latter would be much easier to make a case for execution, even so I still don't agree with it. The death sentence wouldn't deter a child killer (as proven in the US) and won't prevent the snapping of an abused woman would it?

In a civilised society, killing someone should always be a last resort, such as in extreme self defence, or in an unavoidable war scenario. It certainly shouldn't be in an act of controlled and planned revenge, sanctioned by society. Surely we are better than that aren't we?
The bit in bold, how do you know that? We don't have statistics showing the number of men who would be child killers if not for that gnarly death penalty thing. As it happens, I agree with you. People who are already that F'ed up probably aren't going to give two seconds thought to what happens if they get caught - probably because they psychopathic narcissists who think they can't be caught.

As for the child killer that doesn't deserve to be executed...what should we do with him? That's a genuine question. If the answer is "lock him up for life" how is that helping anyone, including him? I'm assuming in this case that this man IS guilty. Not maybe guilty or probably guilty. He is definitely guilty. I say that because I agree with people who are concerned about innocent people being executed - I do not want that either.





Good debate and everyone is being civil. :) I really am genuinely interested in your opinions on what we should do with the worst of the worst. If a person is serving life without chance of parole then who gives a sh*t if we rehabilitate him or not - he's never rejoining society so all we do is make a model prisoner. Society pays to keep a man incarcerated for the rest of his life, maybe 50 or 60 years, without any intention of releasing him. I don't see the value in doing that. I see the value in rehabbing some criminals and releasing them back into society, give them a second chance to fit in and be productive but there are just some who it doesn't make sense to me. I guess I've watched too many LockUp Raw, SuperMAX, etc, shows. :) If you haven't seen any of those, you should try because they are really eye-opening. I didn't ever want to go to prison in the first place but those shows just reaffirm the fact (yet there are people who thrive in those environments).

[over the line]

The bit in bold, how do you know that? We don't have statistics showing the number of men who would be child killers if not for that gnarly death penalty thing. As it happens, I agree with you. People who are already that F'ed up probably aren't going to give two seconds thought to what happens if they get caught - probably because they psychopathic narcissists who think they can't be caught.

As for the child killer that doesn't deserve to be executed...what should we do with him? That's a genuine question. If the answer is "lock him up for life" how is that helping anyone, including him? I'm assuming in this case that this man IS guilty. Not maybe guilty or probably guilty. He is definitely guilty. I say that because I agree with people who are concerned about innocent people being executed - I do not want that either.





Good debate and everyone is being civil. :) I really am genuinely interested in your opinions on what we should do with the worst of the worst. If a person is serving life without chance of parole then who gives a sh*t if we rehabilitate him or not - he's never rejoining society so all we do is make a model prisoner. Society pays to keep a man incarcerated for the rest of his life, maybe 50 or 60 years, without any intention of releasing him. I don't see the value in doing that. I see the value in rehabbing some criminals and releasing them back into society, give them a second chance to fit in and be productive but there are just some who it doesn't make sense to me. I guess I've watched too many LockUp Raw, SuperMAX, etc, shows. :) If you haven't seen any of those, you should try because they are really eye-opening. I didn't ever want to go to prison in the first place but those shows just reaffirm the fact (yet there are people who thrive in those environments).

Which bit is in bold, my phone doesn't show any of it in bold I'm afraid?

I think the child killer type should be incarcerated in thoroughly horrible conditions and made to pay for their offences for the rest of their natural. I realise that doesn't happen and probably never will in this country. In some ways being executed is a quick way out for twisted, evil types, the punishment is over in moments.

Edit: I've watched a few US prison tv programmes and they look like hell! Not pleasant places.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It all sounds so straight-forward, doesn't it. Death penalty for monsters. Yet the impression I get from the various cases from the USA that reach social media is that we are often not talking about "monsters" at all, but troubled individuals. "Monsters" is a classic Murdoch concept used to whip people up - and sell cheap news. Gays can be "monsters" in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iraq or Nigeria who if caught by the legal system can be condemned to death. So my opposition to the death penalty is not so much my own moral position, but what states can and do use it for, including the USA. They develop their moral crusades based on their own, often highly dubious, morals. To take an example from the other end of the "killer" spectrum, what of all the deaths on our roads caused by motorists with the SMIDSY (Sorry Mate, I Didn't See You) syndrome? In our culture that's regarded as just "an accident". But what if government was to take road death somewhat more seriously? Do the arguments about taking someone else's life still apply as a guide to punishment?

People with troubled lives have rights, but other people have the right not to be murdered.
They may not be monsters but they are murderers.
Seems to me most of the people who kill are usually bad ********s.
The only time you can excuse somebody for murder is when they have lost their free will - for example someone suffering from psychosis.

[HiBremian]

People with troubled lives have rights, but other people have the right not to be murdered.
They may not be monsters but they are murderers.
Seems to me most of the people who kill are usually bad ********s.
The only time you can excuse somebody for murder is when they have lost their free will - for example someone suffering from psychosis.

I fully agree they are "murderers". Which surely confirms my point about road killing. Take away the judgemental term "monsters", and we are left with this cultural dilemna:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/07/just-because-someone-has-been-killed-by-a-car-doesnt-make-it-less-of-a-death

[Phil D. Rolls]

I fully agree they are "murderers". Which surely confirms my point about road killing. Take away the judgemental term "monsters", and we are left with this cultural dilemna:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/07/just-because-someone-has-been-killed-by-a-car-doesnt-make-it-less-of-a-death

Distressing stories. To me the heart of the matter is that a car's primary function is not as a killing machine. A gun is.

When people get into a car, it is not usually with the intention of murdering someone. People carry guns as a means of killing someone.

Passengers in cars should be encouraged to report accidents. But to treat them as accomplices to murder if they don't is too much.

[--------]

Distressing stories. To me the heart of the matter is that a car's primary function is not as a killing machine. A gun is.

When people get into a car, it is not usually with the intention of murdering someone. People carry guns as a means of killing someone.

Passengers in cars should be encouraged to report accidents. But to treat them as accomplices to murder if they don't is too much.

That article doesn't equate those killings with murder.

The way I understand it, the argument is that when you or I kill someone with our cars, whether through outright carelessness, or because we were using a phone, texting or whatever, or because we were impaired by alcohol or other drugs, or because we had no insurance and couldn't see well enough to be at the wheel of a motor vehicle, that death should not be treated as casually as it is at present.

AND that if I'm sitting in the backseat of a car whose driver hits someone and just drives away leaving him or her to die alone by the carriageway I have an absolute legal and moral obligation to phone the police and ambulance at once. And that if I don't, I should be held legally responsible as being complicit in that person's death.

I drive a medium-sized estate car, weighing 1004 kg - about a ton. When I get into that car I have a moral responsibility to be in a fit state to drive it. If I'm impaired by drink or drugs, I should be held responsible for anything bad that happens to anyone while I'm behind the wheel. If I've forgotten my glasses, or if I'm wearing my reading glasses, I should be held responsible for any harm that I do. If I'm breaking the speed limit - ditto. If I'm not paying attention to what's going on ahead and around me - ditto. If I'm sending a text, or pouring myself a cup of coffee, or opening a can of Red Bull or whatever, and not paying attention, I should be held responsible.

And if I kill someone, that is HOMICIDE and should be treated with the same due seriousness and rigor that shold attend any unlawful killing.

To somehow consider a young man's death as an inessential peripheral to a charge of careless driving, as at least one judge mentioned here seems to have done, is appalling.

Of course pedestrians should wear light clothing during hours of darkness, and take due care when crossing a street or roadway.

But drivers shouldn't drive when impaired - lots do.

Or drive faster than the legal limit - lots do.

Or do things that distract them from their legal and moral obligation to drive with care and consideration for the people around them - especially pedestrians, especially children. Lots do that too.

But I've never heard of a driver being killed when his car hit a pedestrian, and if juries can't bring themselves to convict a driver whose criminal or irresponsible behaviour has led to the death of another human being, then it's time we had dedicated traffic courts presided over by qualified magistrates or judges who will.

And if I witness an accident - or an unlawful assault or killing by the driver of a car I'm a passenger in - I should be held responsible if I fail to report that accident/assault/homicide as soon as I possibly can.

[HibsMax]

I fully agree they are "murderers". Which surely confirms my point about road killing. Take away the judgemental term "monsters", and we are left with this cultural dilemna:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/mar/07/just-because-someone-has-been-killed-by-a-car-doesnt-make-it-less-of-a-death

I don't know why monsters is being quoted. I wasn't using it as some instrument to get a reaction, or a buzzword; I am talking about men and women who I genuinely believe should be described as monsters because they do terrible things - meaning more terrible than "just normal murder". That doesn't mean gay people or people who dance or people who kiss in public or any of those "outrageous" acts, it means very specific people like Ariel Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Castro_kidnappings), for one example. I'm also not applying it to all people who commit murder because every case is different. If you get in a fight with someone and take things too far and kill the guy, that's murder but probably not premeditated, maybe accidental. It might even have been provoked. Compare that with a man who picks up a child outside of a school, never to be seen again.

I know this probably got lost in all the back and forth but do you have any response to this comment you made earlier:
So my opposition to the death penalty is not so much my own moral position, but what states can and do use it for, including the USA.

From my own research, I found that states within the US predominantly use the death penalty for murderers with a couple of other crimes like kidnapping and "perjury resulting in the execution of an innocent person" (California and Idaho). There is nothing dubious about that as far as I can see.

[HiBremian]

I don't know why monsters is being quoted. I wasn't using it as some instrument to get a reaction, or a buzzword; I am talking about men and women who I genuinely believe should be described as monsters because they do terrible things - meaning more terrible than "just normal murder". That doesn't mean gay people or people who dance or people who kiss in public or any of those "outrageous" acts, it means very specific people like Ariel Castro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Castro_kidnappings), for one example. I'm also not applying it to all people who commit murder because every case is different. If you get in a fight with someone and take things too far and kill the guy, that's murder but probably not premeditated, maybe accidental. It might even have been provoked. Compare that with a man who picks up a child outside of a school, never to be seen again.

I know this probably got lost in all the back and forth but do you have any response to this comment you made earlier:
So my opposition to the death penalty is not so much my own moral position, but what states can and do use it for, including the USA.

From my own research, I found that states within the US predominantly use the death penalty for murderers with a couple of other crimes like kidnapping and "perjury resulting in the execution of an innocent person" (California and Idaho). There is nothing dubious about that as far as I can see.

I know you're genuinely trying to come up with a fair definition of the worst sort of murderer, Max, and I don't want to take any of that away from you. My point is that logic is not necessarily the basis of state thinking - power is. And the examples I cited from around the world were used to illustrate this. I am no expert on current Green Mile occupants in the US but I do know its history, particularly the deep south. My point about opposing the death penalty is for this reason, it is specifically a state-sanctioned form of murder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Phil D. Rolls]

Regarding my original proposition. I think that it would make people less keen to pursue miscarriages of justice, if they knew that someone else innocent would be hanged in revenge.

[--------]

Regarding my original proposition. I think that it would make people less keen to pursue miscarriages of justice, if they knew that someone else innocent would be hanged in revenge.


If they're not bothered about the original miscarraiage of justice, why would they be bothered about another innocent man or woman being executed?

Most pro-hanging advocates I've met are only concerned for one person's neck - their own. They're not too troubled by the idea of anyone else suffering a terminal injustice.

[Hibernia&Alba]

No to capital punishment from me. It doesn't bring back the dead but merely serves revenge, which, IMO, isn't what law and order in a democratic society should be about. The state should never lower itself to the morality of those who have taken life, but should be an example of a humane society. Furthermore, if we got it wrong just once, (which as inevitable, as no system of justice is perfect), then capital punishment becomes unsustainable. Ask yourself this: since hanging was abolished in the UK over half a century ago, how many people originally found guilty of murder have had their convictions overturned? The answer is quite a few, so how could the state have ever justified the murder (for that's what it would have been) of innocent people? No, for me the mark of of a civilized society is a last in part to be judged in its penal system.

I don't buy the deterrent argument either. For surely the prospect of life imprisonment should, to most people, be enough to deter their committing murder? Very often rational thinking has gone out of the window at such as time, and the consequences aren't on the mind of the perpetrator.

[--------]

No to capital punishment from me. It doesn't bring back the dead but merely serves revenge, which, IMO, isn't what law and order in a democratic society should be about. The state should never lower itself to the morality of those who have taken life, but should be an example of a humane society. Furthermore, if we got it wrong just once, (which as inevitable, as no system of justice is perfect), then capital punishment becomes unsustainable. Ask yourself this: since hanging was abolished in the UK over half a century ago, how many people originally found guilty of murder have had their convictions overturned? The answer is quite a few, so how could the state have ever justified the murder (for that's what it would have been) of innocent people? No, for me the mark of of a civilized society is a last in part to be judged in its penal system.

I don't buy the deterrent argument either. For surely the prospect of life imprisonment should, to most people, be enough to deter their committing murder? Very often rational thinking has gone out of the window at such as time, and the consequences aren't on the mind of the perpetrator.


Unless I'm very much mistaken, you've just outlined here the position taken by the late Albert Pierrepoint (who knew a great deal more about what went on in the execution shed than any of us do) took in his memoirs.

Pierrepoint officiated at the execution of at least 400 men and women, including the Nazi war criminals sentenced at the Belsen trial in late 1945. There seems no doubt that the vast majority of the people he hanged were guilty as charged, but equally Pierrepoint was aware by the end of his career that he had almost certainly hanged a number of innocent people, including Timothy Evans, who was convicted of the murder of his wife and infant daughter on the evidence of a police informer well-known to the detective in charge of the case - one John Christie. Christie had a long criminal record, which wasn't brought out at Evans' trial.

Christie eventually confessed to 8 murders including those of Beryl and Geraldine Evans.

West later received a pardon for the murder of his daughter (which was the crime he had been hanged for). The judge who led the enquiry into the West case concluded that it was "more probable than not" that West had killed his wife Beryl - a conclusion that falls well short of the standard of proof demanded in a criminal trial, where the jury have to be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" that the accused is guilty before returning a guilty verdict.

The extent of Evans' guilt has never been fully established,and it's quite possible if not probable that he was innocent of both murders. What IS clear is that the Crown didn't think they had anything like a conclusive case against him for the killing of his wife, or they would have charged him with it.

Pierrepoint hanged both Evans and Christie, so I suppose we can all be happy that the right man dropped through the trap in the end.

Pierrepoint also hanged Derek Bentley, a mentally-challenged teenager caught on the roof of a warehouse. In the ensuing confrontation with the police Bentley's accomplice Craig shot and killed a police officer. Craig was 16 - too young to hang. Bentley became the scapegoat. He was in police custody when the fatal shot was fired, but was convicted on the grounds that he had called out to Craig, "Let him have it, Chris." The question is what Bentley meant by 'let him have it'. Did he mean 'shoot him' or did he mean 'give him the gun'? Think about it - reasonable doubt? I'd say so. And even if the jury convicted him, still enough doubt surely to refrain from the death sentence? That would be my view. If the victim hadn't been a policeman, I suspect bentley would have served life. But as I say, the law wanted revenge. DB was the scapegoat.

He was hanged on January 28 1953 and finally pardoned on July 30 1998. A comfort to his family, no doubt, but not a lot of help to him.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Pierrepoint also hanged Derek Bentley, a mentally-challenged teenager caught on the roof of a warehouse. In the ensuing confrontation with the police Bentley's accomplice Craig shot and killed a police officer. Craig was 16 - too young to hang. Bentley became the scapegoat. He was in police custody when the fatal shot was fired, but was convicted on the grounds that he had called out to Craig, "Let him have it, Chris." The question is what Bentley meant by 'let him have it'. Did he mean 'shoot him' or did he mean 'give him the gun'? Think about it - reasonable doubt? I'd say so. And even if the jury convicted him, still enough doubt surely to refrain from the death sentence? That would be my view. If the victim hadn't been a policeman, I suspect bentley would have served life. But as I say, the law wanted revenge. DB was the scapegoat.

He was hanged on January 28 1953 and finally pardoned on July 30 1998. A comfort to his family, no doubt, but not a lot of help to him.

The context of Bentley's "crime" is interesting.

The murder happened against a backdrop of national hysteria whipped up by the media. There was growing concern about the problem of delinquent youth, the flames being fanned by sensationalist newspaper reporting.

When the trial began, papers were baying for blood. Craig could not be hanged because he was too young, but Bentley wasn't.

They portrayed him as being the epitome of the loutish, uneducated youth that was terrorising society and putting the fabric of civilisation at stake. This in Britain still suffering the depravations of war time austerity.

The judge in the trial fully expected the death sentence to be commuted. The decision was left in the hands of the home secretary - David Maxwell-Fyffe.

Maxwell - Fyffe was a weak politician, and rather than err on the side of humanity, he chose to have Bentley executed - "pour encourager les autres" - to send out a message that no-one goes against the state.

Now fast forward to the present day, an economy in austerity, media frenzy about Islamist youth, and possibly a hung parliament relying on the support of extreme right wingers. Can anybody say, hand on heart, that the same thing wouldn't happen again?

[HibsMax]

I know you're genuinely trying to come up with a fair definition of the worst sort of murderer, Max, and I don't want to take any of that away from you. My point is that logic is not necessarily the basis of state thinking - power is. And the examples I cited from around the world were used to illustrate this. I am no expert on current Green Mile occupants in the US but I do know its history, particularly the deep south. My point about opposing the death penalty is for this reason, it is specifically a state-sanctioned form of murder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Let's not forget that you have to be found guilty by a jury of your peers and I believe they can influence the sentencing as well e.g., they might find a person guilty of a lesser crime, one that does not carry the death penalty even though that is what the prosecution was aiming for. So even though the state is "pulling the trigger", they are doing so after as many precautions have been taken as possible and after said jury has determined that the punishment fits the crime. I'm not so sure that the other countries mentioned have such a process.

[HibsMax]

If they're not bothered about the original miscarraiage of justice, why would they be bothered about another innocent man or woman being executed?

Most pro-hanging advocates I've met are only concerned for one person's neck - their own. They're not too troubled by the idea of anyone else suffering a terminal injustice.
Are you saying that most pro-hanging advocates that you've spoken with don't care if a person is hanged for crime they did not commit? You know some nice people. ;) Seriously, I've never met someone with that attitude (or if they have that attitude they've kept it under wraps).

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822

[--------]

Are you saying that most pro-hanging advocates that you've spoken with don't care if a person is hanged for crime they did not commit? You know some nice people. ;) Seriously, I've never met someone with that attitude (or if they have that attitude they've kept it under wraps).


Sorry, Max - didn't see this and haven't been on this board for a while.

Yes, actually - that's what I'm saying.

I wouldn't say they're fully conscious of the logical ramifications of their support for the death penalty. However, knowing full well that serious miscarriages of justice have taken place in the past, and fully aware of the fallibility of the police and judiciary, they still insist that the death penalty is viable and justifiable.

Witnesses lie in court. Police sometimes stitch people up. Forensics sometimes get it wrong. Judges sometimes misdirect juries. All these and other factors can lead to a person being convicted wrongly.

You can't even begin to put things right if it turns out a few years after the execution that you've killed the wrong man or woman.

And unless someone really believes that the law is infallible and incorruptible (in which case I venture to suggest that that person really needs to wake up and smell the coffee), then support for the death penalty implies a clear lack of concern about the possibility of the execution of an innocent human being.

Therefore I would conclude that they are more concerned for the safety of their own necks (and other bits and pieces) than they are about a lethal and irreversible injustice inflicted on someone else.

[snooky]

One question I've often asked myself ...
Is the death sentence a deterrent to a suicide bomber given that he/she has already committed his/her life to their cause (whatever that cause may be).

[Phil D. Rolls]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32061822

Suppose it depends on when the poll is taken. I suspect it would have been a higher percentage in the week Lee Rigby was killed.

[HibsMax]

Sorry, Max - didn't see this and haven't been on this board for a while.

Yes, actually - that's what I'm saying.

I wouldn't say they're fully conscious of the logical ramifications of their support for the death penalty. However, knowing full well that serious miscarriages of justice have taken place in the past, and fully aware of the fallibility of the police and judiciary, they still insist that the death penalty is viable and justifiable.

Witnesses lie in court. Police sometimes stitch people up. Forensics sometimes get it wrong. Judges sometimes misdirect juries. All these and other factors can lead to a person being convicted wrongly.

You can't even begin to put things right if it turns out a few years after the execution that you've killed the wrong man or woman.

And unless someone really believes that the law is infallible and incorruptible (in which case I venture to suggest that that person really needs to wake up and smell the coffee), then support for the death penalty implies a clear lack of concern about the possibility of the execution of an innocent human being.

Therefore I would conclude that they are more concerned for the safety of their own necks (and other bits and pieces) than they are about a lethal and irreversible injustice inflicted on someone else.
I understand what you mean. The bold bit, I personally do not believe that to be the case but if it did, then I would be supportive of the death penalty. I don't mean to be confusing or contradict myself, I'm supportive of the death penalty right now but I understand that any system that implements it has to be infallible, and we're not completely there yet. However, even having said that, I genuinely believe there are people today for whom this punishment is just, people of whom their guilt is not in question at all....but that raises other questions because everyone who is incarcerated is supposed to be guilty. I know what I mean. ;)

[HibsMax]

One question I've often asked myself ...
Is the death sentence a deterrent to a suicide bomber given that he/she has already committed his/her life to their cause (whatever that cause may be).
I very much doubt it. Punishment, whatever form it takes, affects people differently. The thought of a speeding ticket will keep some people driving slow whereas others will blast around at 100mph all the time. The fact that speeding tickets don't deter everyone from speeding.....I've never seen that as being a reason to get rid of them. I do understand that speeding tickets don't kill innocent people though.

[Scouse Hibee]

I very much doubt it. Punishment, whatever form it takes, affects people differently. The thought of a speeding ticket will keep some people driving slow whereas others will blast around at 100mph all the time. The fact that speeding tickets don't deter everyone from speeding.....I've never seen that as being a reason to get rid of them. I do understand that speeding tickets don't kill innocent people though.

But people that speed do kill innocent people so maybe we should hang them instead!

[Hibbyradge]

But people that speed do kill innocent people so maybe we should hang them instead!

If the UK had capital punishment in 1989, I'm certain that papers like the Sun and the Daily Hate Mail would have called for Liverpool fans to be singled out then hung for causing the disaster. Right wing politicians would have jumped on that populist bandwagon and knowing now what the police did to cover their culpability, I'm sure they could, and would, have obliged.

Following the logic of your arguments on this thread, you'd have accepted the deaths of those innocent people for the "greater good".

[--------]

I understand what you mean. The bold bit, I personally do not believe that to be the case but if it did, then I would be supportive of the death penalty. I don't mean to be confusing or contradict myself, I'm supportive of the death penalty right now but I understand that any system that implements it has to be infallible, and we're not completely there yet. However, even having said that, I genuinely believe there are people today for whom this punishment is just, people of whom their guilt is not in question at all....but that raises other questions because everyone who is incarcerated is supposed to be guilty. I know what I mean. ;)


Yup. I have no qualms myself about the execution of (for example) John Wayne Gacy or any of his like. There was no doubt about his guilt, or about the enormity of his crimes and there are many like him, unfortunately. On the other hand, could we say that Dennis BTK Rader got off lightly when he was given life? An arrogant, vicious sexual sadist locked away for ever? The film of his sentencing when the families of his victims were telling him exactly what they thought of him and what was going to be the rest of his life is something to see.

The problem I see is that it's almost impossible to construct a legal framework whereby these guys can be given the punishment commensurate with their crimes without the danger of lethal injustice happening to innocent people.

And I have no problem either, btw, with the cases of the 47 Belsen concentration-camp guards hanged two-by-two by Albert Pierrepoint back in 1945. They died a lot more easily than their victims did.

[Scouse Hibee]

If the UK had capital punishment in 1989, I'm certain that papers like the Sun and the Daily Hate Mail would have called for Liverpool fans to be singled out then hung for causing the disaster. Right wing politicians would have jumped on that populist bandwagon and knowing now what the police did to cover their culpability, I'm sure they could, and would, have obliged.

Following the logic of your arguments on this thread, you'd have accepted the deaths of those innocent people for the "greater good".

Ridiculous.

[Kato]

Ridiculous.

How so ?

[Phil D. Rolls]

Ridiculous.

Why? On my planet it makes complete sense.

[snooky]

Why? On my planet it makes complete sense.

Men are from Mars :wink::greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Men are from Mars :wink::greengrin

Jobbies are from Uranus?

I realise I've taken that too far.

[Hibbyradge]

Ridiculous.

In what way?

[Scouse Hibee]

In what way?

About as unbelievable a scenario that you could ever imagine, in that way! I repeat.........ridiculous.

[Scouse Hibee]

Why? On my planet it makes complete sense.

On your planet it probably does!

[HibsMax]

But people that speed do kill innocent people so maybe we should hang them instead!
Certainly if it's proven that the did so deliberately. Murder is murder whether you use your hands, a gun or your car.

[Phil D. Rolls]

On your planet it probably does!

There was this mother, and she was watching the Boys Brigade marching. She turned to the lady beside her and said "my little boy is the only one who is walking in step".

[snooky]

There was this mother, and she was watching the Boys Brigade marching. She turned to the lady beside her and said "my little boy is the only one who is walking in step".

That would be me. I couldny march tae save myself. :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

About as unbelievable a scenario that you could ever imagine, in that way! I repeat.........ridiculous.

You really mean inconvenient, but hey ho.

You're prepared to accept an unknown number of innocent people being put to death in return for the guilty being hung too.

I, and it seems, the majority of British citizens, are not.

There positions won't be changing any time soon, regardless of how many characters we type, so I'll bow out of this thread now. :thumbsup:

[over the line]

If the UK had capital punishment in 1989, I'm certain that papers like the Sun and the Daily Hate Mail would have called for Liverpool fans to be singled out then hung for causing the disaster. Right wing politicians would have jumped on that populist bandwagon and knowing now what the police did to cover their culpability, I'm sure they could, and would, have obliged.

Following the logic of your arguments on this thread, you'd have accepted the deaths of those innocent people for the "greater good".

So in that case why didn't the police single out fans and prosecute them anyway? Are you suggesting that they didn't bother because there was no death sentence? I'm not trying to be a *u*t but I just don't get your point.

[over the line]

Certainly if it's proven that the did so deliberately. Murder is murder whether you use your hands, a gun or your car.

Everyone that speeds and causes a death should be executed, is that what you are saying? Really?

[over the line]

You really mean inconvenient, but hey ho.

You're prepared to accept an unknown number of innocent people being put to death in return for the guilty being hung too.

I, and it seems, the majority of British citizens, are not.

There positions won't be changing any time soon, regardless of how many characters we type, so I'll bow out of this thread now. :thumbsup:

Apparently for the first time ever (I think it is 'ever' anyway) the majority of British people don't agree with the death penalty. How shocking is that, to think that most people until recently thought it was ok to kill people as an act of state sanctioned revenge! I can't believe just under half of people still think its ok!

Edit: just gone back and seen your post/link about this very subject, I must try harder to pay attention and keep up. :o

[Hibbyradge]

So in that case why didn't the police single out fans and prosecute them anyway? Are you suggesting that they didn't bother because there was no death sentence? I'm not trying to be a *u*t but I just don't get your point.

It was hypothetical.

[Phil D. Rolls]

So in that case why didn't the police single out fans and prosecute them anyway? Are you suggesting that they didn't bother because there was no death sentence? I'm not trying to be a *u*t but I just don't get your point.

I think that the hanging of Derek Bentley and the framing of The Guildford Four etc., shows that with a hysterical public at their back the police and authorities will stop at nothing.

The public failed to pick up on the Sun's lies and the Sun soon realised that it wasn't going to sell them papers. Had it been the other way, there would have been arrests, like happened at the Heysel. Anybody in a red scarf was fair game for the cops that night.

[over the line]

I think that the hanging of Derek Bentley and the framing of The Guildford Four etc., shows that with a hysterical public at their back the police and authorities will stop at nothing.

The public failed to pick up on the Sun's lies and the Sun soon realised that it wasn't going to sell them papers. Had it been the other way, there would have been arrests, like happened at the Heysel. Anybody in a red scarf was fair game for the cops that night.

But my point is that they didn't single out individual fans from Hillsborough and prosecute them (as far as I'm aware anyway), so it follows that they wouldn't have executed anyone for it doesn't it?

I do see the point that was trying to be made, but that particular example just doesn't work.

[Phil D. Rolls]

But my point is that they didn't single out individual fans from Hillsborough and prosecute them (as far as I'm aware anyway), so it follows that they wouldn't have executed anyone for it doesn't it?

I do see the point that was trying to be made, but that particular example just doesn't work.

They didn't go after individuals, because public opinion didn't demand it. If the public had demanded blood, people would have been arrested.

Let's look at it an another way - a man served time in prison in Scotland for a bombing we know he wasn't responsible for. That was due to pressure from American families, who no doubt would have been happy to see him swing.

[silverhibee]

They didn't go after individuals, because public opinion didn't demand it. If the public had demanded blood, people would have been arrested.

Let's look at it an another way - a man served time in prison in Scotland for a bombing we know he wasn't responsible for. That was due to pressure from American families, who no doubt would have been happy to see him swing.

Is this the same man who was found guilty by the Scottish courts, the man unsuccessfully appealed his conviction in 2001 and then dropped his appeal later again because it prevented him being transfered back to his own country, and died a guilty man.

Kenny MacAskill surely wouldn't tell lies would he, he said the man was guilty of the charges.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Is this the same man who was found guilty by the Scottish courts, the man unsuccessfully appealed his conviction in 2001 and then dropped his appeal later again because it prevented him being transfered back to his own country, and died a guilty man.

Kenny MacAskill surely wouldn't tell lies would he, he said the man was guilty of the charges.

Indeed it was - he is the same man who would have hanged had it been on the statute books. Hypothetically speaking - let's just assume that Megrahi's conviction was unsafe, and was in response to public pressure (I know, I know, but bear with me).

I'd say that he was as guilty as the Guildford Four, or numerous other people who have been fitted up over the years.

But yes, you're right, he was found guilty of a crime so he must have bee guilty. Even if he didn't do it.

[wpj]

BBC4 tonight at 2200 an excellent drama based on fact with a miscarriage of justice. Well worth watching or recording. Made a huge impact on me when I was younger.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32178121

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26540604

[steakbake]

I think that the hanging of Derek Bentley and the framing of The Guildford Four etc., shows that with a hysterical public at their back the police and authorities will stop at nothing.

Barry George.

[--------]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32178121


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26540604

I recommend Bob Woffinden's book 'Miscarriages of Justice' - it's 30 years old now, but some of the details of the police 'investigations' that sent people to the gallows in the 1950s and 60s - and to serve life sentences in the 70s and 80s - would make your hair curl.

I'm rather surprised that no one's come in here claiming that these two cases from the States prove just how well the appeals system works over there. After all, they may have taken 25 or 30 years about it, but they got there in the end ....

What are those guys complaining about? They're out now, aren't they?

[HibsMax]

I wonder if THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnWJxix9Gak) is worthy of the death penalty? There can be little doubt about guilt in this surely?

[Hibrandenburg]

I wonder if THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnWJxix9Gak) is worthy of the death penalty? There can be little doubt about guilt in this surely?

Don't under estimate the value of a good attorney, be interesting to see what story they come out with.

[steakbake]

I wonder if THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnWJxix9Gak) is worthy of the death penalty? There can be little doubt about guilt in this surely?

I'm not sure you're getting the hang of the argument. It's not just about guilt. It's about the state being given the power to take your life and the morality of a judicial killing.

In effect, in this case, there'd be two judicial killings: one - the guy running away and shot in the back, two - the cop that did it.

[HibsMax]

I'm not sure you're getting the hang of the argument. It's not just about guilt. It's about the state being given the power to take your life and the morality of a judicial killing.

In effect, in this case, there'd be two judicial killings: one - the guy running away and shot in the back, two - the cop that did it.

There are many facets to this argument. Guilt is one and people have argued a lot about how innocents might get killed. The reason I picked this recent case was to show that, in some circumstances, guilt is not in any question.

The question of IF the state should be allowed to kill criminals is another argument, but that was not the point I was trying to make. Sorry for being so unclear.

[--------]

I wonder if THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnWJxix9Gak) is worthy of the death penalty? There can be little doubt about guilt in this surely?


Max, there's a number of cases where I'm perfectly sure there was no doubt about the guilt of the accused. That's not the point.

The point is that when the police and courts have the death penalty available, they apply it on a regular basis - in cases where the guilt of the accused is clear and beyond even reasonable doubt, and in cases where everything's screaming 'unsafe conviction'.

There is a video of a 14-year-old boy, Michael Crowe, being 'interviewed' by a number of your cops in the case of his sister's murder. The kid is alone in the interview room and the cops go on and on and on and on at him. At one point they tell him that if he doesn't confess to the murder they'll still convict him, and when they do he'll be sent to an adult prison where he'll be serially gang-raped by the big boys. If he wants to go to a juvie he'd better 'fess up right away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkLHXKHb1Vch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJcqjPxtIXc


Those cops should have been thrown off the force and jailed for what they did to that youngster. I can't watch to whole of those clips - I get so angry I end up wanting to kill someone myself. One of those cops. These people were perfect examples of why some police can't be trusted to investigate cases honestly and conscientiously. These ones weren't concerned with truth or justice - simply in crossing off another case.

12 hours those cops went after the boy: they were using a 'stress detector' to judge whether he was lying? He'd just lost his sister to a violent crime - of course he was stressed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGp1LVciP2c is another good clip to listen to.

[CropleyWasGod]

I wonder if THIS (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnWJxix9Gak) is worthy of the death penalty? There can be little doubt about guilt in this surely?

If I were sitting on a jury, I would be wanting a lot more evidence than just that video before I convicted the apparent shooter of murder.

What happened before the incident?

What was said between the 2 of them?

How good a shot was the cop?

What did forensics say?

Is there a grassy knoll?

[--------]

If I were sitting on a jury, I would be wanting a lot more evidence than just that video before I convicted the apparent shooter of murder.

What happened before the incident?

What was said between the 2 of them?

How good a shot was the cop?

What did forensics say?

Is there a grassy knoll?


Exactly - context is everything.

[HibsMax]

Max, there's a number of cases where I'm perfectly sure there was no doubt about the guilt of the accused. That's not the point.
It's a point, not the only point. It's the point I was trying to make, albeit without me specifically calling that out.


The point is that when the police and courts have the death penalty available, they apply it on a regular basis - in cases where the guilt of the accused is clear and beyond even reasonable doubt, and in cases where everything's screaming 'unsafe conviction'.
This is another point, one that applies to all penalties.


There is a video of a 14-year-old boy, Michael Crowe, being 'interviewed' by a number of your cops in the case of his sister's murder. The kid is alone in the interview room and the cops go on and on and on and on at him. At one point they tell him that if he doesn't confess to the murder they'll still convict him, and when they do he'll be sent to an adult prison where he'll be serially gang-raped by the big boys. If he wants to go to a juvie he'd better 'fess up right away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkLHXKHb1Vch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJcqjPxtIXc


Those cops should have been thrown off the force and jailed for what they did to that youngster. I can't watch to whole of those clips - I get so angry I end up wanting to kill someone myself. One of those cops. These people were perfect examples of why some police can't be trusted to investigate cases honestly and conscientiously. These ones weren't concerned with truth or justice - simply in crossing off another case.

12 hours those cops went after the boy: they were using a 'stress detector' to judge whether he was lying? He'd just lost his sister to a violent crime - of course he was stressed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGp1LVciP2c is another good clip to listen to.
I will watch those videos later, but not at work. Not "my" cops by the way. :wink: I do understand that cops can and do use underhand and abusive tactics to get confessions. I'm not at all supportive of that and agree with everything you say about what should happen to them. People are supposed to trust these men and women. People are not supposed to feel terrified when they se police (except criminals, of course). I'm sure you watched it but the video I linked was of a cop killing a black man who was running away, so this is totally different than cops coercing a confession out of someone.






I apologise since clearly I did a poor job of explaining why I provided a link to that video. My point wasn't:
1. is it morally right to allow state-sponsored murder? If you are opposed to that then it doesn't matter what the crime is or who the criminal is because you will always answer with NO.
2. are the cops fair in the way they chase after a prosecution? We all know that is not true in all cases.

My point was simply that if you happen to catch a murder on video, surely that removes all doubt and you can safely prosecute. Before I get skewered for saying that, I'm not saying let's lynch the cop right away without a fair trial because there could be other facts that we are as yet unaware of. However, if there is nothing that contradicts what we appear to see in that video (a cop shooting a man 8 times in the back for running away) then I have to say "throw him to the dogs".

[HibsMax]

If I were sitting on a jury, I would be wanting a lot more evidence than just that video before I convicted the apparent shooter of murder.

What happened before the incident?

What was said between the 2 of them?

How good a shot was the cop?

What did forensics say?

Is there a grassy knoll?
Right, and I should have said that too. As I said above in my response to Doddie, I'm not suggesting we lynch this guy based on this video alone. He deserves a fair trial. What I am saying is that if that video is a fair representation of what went down, it's clearly cold-blooded murder.

It doesn't matter what the man said or did. It doesn't matter how good a shot the cop is. Since when has running away from the cops been a crime punishable by death? The guy who was shot was a 50-year old man. I wouldn't even call what he was doing "running", more like lumbering. The only time that a police officer is supposed to shoot someone who is running is if that person is a clear and present danger to someone.

Of course questions have to be asked and an investigation has to be carried but, at this point in time I cannot see the justice in him being gunned down.

NEW VIDEO (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/us/south-carolina-police-shooting/index.html). Doesn't show much other than the guy running away after being stopped. Clearly he's up to something (no insurance, car is not bought yet, etc.) but still waiting to see / hear what he did that justified the shooting. Perhaps that information will come out in due course.
MORE COMPLETE (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/north-charleston-police-shooting-not-justified-experts-say.html?contentCollection=us&action=click&module=NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article) first video.

[--------]

Right, and I should have said that too. As I said above in my response to Doddie, I'm not suggesting we lynch this guy based on this video alone. He deserves a fair trial. What I am saying is that if that video is a fair representation of what went down, it's clearly cold-blooded murder.

It doesn't matter what the man said or did. It doesn't matter how good a shot the cop is. Since when has running away from the cops been a crime punishable by death? The guy who was shot was a 50-year old man. I wouldn't even call what he was doing "running", more like lumbering. The only time that a police officer is supposed to shoot someone who is running is if that person is a clear and present danger to someone.

Of course questions have to be asked and an investigation has to be carried but, at this point in time I cannot see the justice in him being gunned down.

NEW VIDEO (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/09/us/south-carolina-police-shooting/index.html). Doesn't show much other than the guy running away after being stopped. Clearly he's up to something (no insurance, car is not bought yet, etc.) but still waiting to see / hear what he did that justified the shooting. Perhaps that information will come out in due course.
MORE COMPLETE (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/north-charleston-police-shooting-not-justified-experts-say.html?contentCollection=us&action=click&module=NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article) first video.

That last video seems to be pretty comprehensive. Doesn't leave a lot to the imagination.

As you say, Max, Scott wasn't exactly travelling very fast and the policeman could easily have caught him. The only danger the guy seems to have been to the people around (actually, there ARE no people, but say there had been) was knocking them over by running into them (except they weren't there).

I notice the cop drops 'something' near the body. I'll take a wild guess and suggest that that might be the taser in question?

I can't see any conclusion likely right now other than that this is a case of murder by the police officer, and given that the police officer was Caucasian and the victim African-American and it happened in South Carolina, I would suspect that some of the motivation behind the killing was racist. Plea-bargain time?

If I were being REALLY nasty I'd say it's a sad day south of the Mason-Dixon Line when a white cop can't shoot a black guy just to keep the rest of them honest ...

But I won't. :devil: