Lethal injection,the best way?

[saint lard]

If my son was the victim i would happily tie the noose,pull the trigger,insert the syringe, or plug them into the mains.

 

Sorry if this seems callous and immoral,but if proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the said perpertrator commited the crime against my child then they left their right to live behind, the moment they laid thier filthy hands on him.

 

The likes of Shipman,Huntley,Sutcliff to name just a couple should not have been allowed to breath the same air a moment longer once they are proven guilty.

 

And as for Thomson and Venables,they may well have been 'children' when they abducted james Bulger,but they should have remained in custody for the rest of their natural lives.

The only thing that saved them was that they were kids themselves.

Edited 16 September, 2009 by saint lard

[badgerx16]

Regarding the 'only when there is overwhelming evidence' line...

 

The Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, and the Birmingham Six, along with individuals such as Stephan Kisko and Sean Hodgson, all had jury trials, were convicted according to the laws of the land of pre-meditated murder 'beyond a reasonable doubt', ( in Kisko's case the rape & murder of a young girl ), and after many, many, years in jail, were proved entirely blameless.

 

Add to these Sally Clark, Sheila Bowler, Patrick Nichols, and Kevin Callan, who were all convicted of murders when in fact the deaths of the 'victims' were natural or accidental.

 

The Police and prosecutors can make mistakes, or can even deliberately slew the system. Legalised murder is never the answer.

Edited 16 September, 2009 by badgerx16

[Thedelldays]

Regarding the 'only when there is overwhelming evidence' line...

 

The Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, and the Birmingham Six, along with individuals such as Stephan Kisko and Sean Hodgson, all had jury trials, were convicted according to the laws of the land of pre-meditated murder 'beyond a reasonable doubt', ( in Kisko's case the rape & murder of a young girl ), and after many, many, years in jail, were proved entirely blameless.

 

Add to these Sally Clark, Sheila Bowler, Patrick Nichols, and Kevin Callan, who were all convicted of murders when in fact the deaths of the 'victims' were natural or accidental.

 

The Police and prosecutors can make mistakes, or can even deliberately slew the system. Legalised murder is never the answer.

 

 

i think they were on about the shipmans, wests, hindleys of this world..the pure evil

[aintforever]

Regarding the 'only when there is overwhelming evidence' line...

 

The Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, and the Birmingham Six, along with individuals such as Stephan Kisko and Sean Hodgson, all had jury trials, were convicted according to the laws of the land of pre-meditated murder 'beyond a reasonable doubt', ( in Kisko's case the rape & murder of a young girl ), and after many, many, years in jail, were proved entirely blameless.

 

Add to these Sally Clark, Sheila Bowler, Patrick Nichols, and Kevin Callan, who were all convicted of murders when in fact the deaths of the 'victims' were natural or accidental.

 

The Police and prosecutors can make mistakes, or can even deliberately slew the system. Legalised murder is never the answer.

 

Yes but there is a difference between "reasonable doubt" and NO doubt. If someone is caught red handed or is obviously guilty beyond any doubt, and has committed sick crimes that would mean they would probably never be released - then they should be killed IMO.

[badgerx16]

i think they were on about the shipmans, wests, hindleys of this world..the pure evil

At the time the Maguires, etc were found guilty of being IRA bombers, blowing their innocent victims to pieces without warning. I think the problem with trying to draw a defining line in such circumstances is that it is only ever drawn in sand, it can never be legally and morally fixed.

[badgerx16]

Yes but there is a difference between "reasonable doubt" and NO doubt. If someone is caught red handed or is obviously guilty beyond any doubt, and has committed sick crimes that would mean they would probably never be released - then they should be killed IMO.

 

Would the allegations against Kisko qualify ? The abduction, sexual assault, and murder of an 11 year old girl.

Edited 16 September, 2009 by badgerx16

[aintforever]

Would the allegations against Kisko qualify ? The abduction, sexual assault, and murder of an 11 year old girl.

 

Dunno, I'm not familiar with the case.

 

There are cases where guilt is beyond doubt like West, Huntley, Shipman etc. Only when this is the case should the death penalty be used.

[Ponty]

In two out of three of those you mention they saved us the 10p for the bullet too... Win/win.

[Mr_Red]

But how many crimes/murders would be prevented due to the death penalty being a deterrent.

 

Impossible to answer, but even few saved lives would mean it would be worth it.

 

 

Impossible to tell for this country maybe...

I believe (deathpenaltyinfo.org) that the Ukraine are one of the few countries to recently drop the death penalty for European reasons.

Crime stats didn't change much, if it all - so the death penalty (in the Ukraine anyway) is not really a deterrent.

The murder rate is lower in Non-DP states in the US, so is the death penalty inciting murder?! I'm guessing not, it's probably more down to the social demographic of each state, but its a bit interesting to get the bigger picture.

 

Although not the important part of the debate IMO, I also believe due to appeals etc that it does cost more to kill a prisoner than to imprison them for life. Is this a major factor in peoples views?

[badgerx16]

 

...... cases where guilt is beyond doubt

Is that not the over-riding principle in ALL criminal cases anyway ?

 

Who, in your opinion, decides whether the guilt is actually 'beyond doubt' if it is not the Jury at the trial ? The Police ? The presiding Judge ? The CPS ? The appeal Courts ? The House of Lords ? The European Court of Justice ? Or maybe we should just leave it to the baying, rabid, tabloid press, or we could have a Big Brother style telephone vote after having some 'B' list celeb presenting edited highlights of the trial on prime-time TV ?

[Thedelldays]

Is that not the over-riding principle in ALL criminal cases anyway ?

 

Who, in your opinion, decides whether the guilt is actually 'beyond doubt' if it is not the Jury at the trial ? The Police ? The presiding Judge ? The CPS ? The appeal Courts ? The House of Lords ? The European Court of Justice ? Or maybe we should just leave it to the baying, rabid, tabloid press, or we could have a Big Brother style telephone vote after having some 'B' list celeb presenting edited highlights of the trial on prime-time TV ?

hindley, shipman, west

 

three that deserved to by put down.....unless, there was some doubt..?

[badgerx16]

hindley, shipman, west

 

three that deserved to by put down.....unless, there was some doubt..?

Stephan Kisko, Anne Maguire, Paul Hill........

 

It becomes a circular argument. If somebody can be in jail for 27 years before being cleared of a murder they never, in fact, committed, can we afford a cut-off point for determining that their 'guilt' is actually not in doubt and it is safe to assume they can be disposed of ?

[aintforever]

Is that not the over-riding principle in ALL criminal cases anyway ?

 

Who, in your opinion, decides whether the guilt is actually 'beyond doubt' if it is not the Jury at the trial ? The Police ? The presiding Judge ? The CPS ? The appeal Courts ? The House of Lords ? The European Court of Justice ? Or maybe we should just leave it to the baying, rabid, tabloid press, or we could have a Big Brother style telephone vote after having some 'B' list celeb presenting edited highlights of the trial on prime-time TV ?

 

Someone is convicted if it is beyond REASONABLE doubt, it would not be hard to have a secondary court that decides if the conviction is free from ANY doubt.

 

For example there is obviously a difference if a conviction relies upon an eye witness statement and a few bits of circumstantial evidence, and a bit of forensics, than if someone is caught on CCTV raping and murdering someone. Or in Fred West's case, if he has several bodies buried under his house and there is a recording of him torturing someone.

 

You just need a team of judges to decide if a death penalty is safe.

[badgerx16]

Someone is convicted if it is beyond REASONABLE doubt, it would not be hard to have a secondary court that decides if the conviction is free from ANY doubt.

 

What if part of the prosecution case is a confession ? Does that remove doubt ?

Sean Hodgson had a mental condition which led him to confess to a murder he could not have carried out, yet it took 27 years to clear him.

 

What about cases where scientific advances come about years later, which cast 'incontrovertible' evidence in a new light ?

Edited 16 September, 2009 by badgerx16

[aintforever]

What if part of the prosecution case is a confession ? Does that remove doubt ?

Sean Hodgson had a mental condition which led him to confess to a murder he could not have carried out, yet it took 27 years to clear him.

 

Confessions from mental people would not be enough to get through my panel of death judges, would need other smoking gun evidence.

 

You have to admit that although there are sometimes innocent people convicted there are also some cases which are free from any doubt of guilt?

Edited 16 September, 2009 by aintforever

[Thedelldays]

Stephan Kisko, Anne Maguire, Paul Hill........

 

It becomes a circular argument. If somebody can be in jail for 27 years before being cleared of a murder they never, in fact, committed, can we afford a cut-off point for determining that their 'guilt' is actually not in doubt and it is safe to assume they can be disposed of ?

not really..i have gven examples of those who are guilty beyond any doubt.....then you have (probably) given those where it may or may not be certain...

 

what is the point..?

[badgerx16]

not really..i have gven examples of those who are guilty beyond any doubt.....then you have (probably) given those where it may or may not be certain...

 

what is the point..?

Because, at the time each of the cases I quote were viewed as being 'beyond doubt'. The point is how to define something as being such a certainty that you can be willing to kill somebody.

[aintforever]

Because, at the time each of the cases I quote were viewed as being 'beyond doubt'. The point is how to define something as being such a certainty that you can be willing to kill somebody.

 

Head in fridge, semen on corpse sort of stuff.

 

This is going round in circles.

[AndyNorthernSaints]

There are too many innocent people convicted to allow the death penalty and having witnessed police telling lies to try to convict someone in court i can tell you it is not a pleasant experience and makes you question the whole criminal justice system in this country.

[revolution saint]

I don't really have a sophistcated argument for this and i don't think it needs one - either you believe in the death sentence or you don't. No amount of justification on either side will sway the other.

 

Personally I don't believe in it. Somoeone once wrote (I'm not sure who) that you shouldn't expect the state to carry out something you wouldn't be prepared to do yourselves and I couldn't kill someone in cold blood.

 

I'm sure there are many here who would claim they could do that job without hesitation and possibly they could. I would say being brave behind a keyboard is entirely different to actually murdering someone but that's just me. I'm glad we don't have a death penalty here.

[Minsk]

Head in fridge, semen on corpse sort of stuff.

 

This is going round in circles.

 

I won't quote all of your posts but suffice to say I see things exactly the same way as you do on this topic.

[Minsk]

I don't really have a sophistcated argument for this and i don't think it needs one - either you believe in the death sentence or you don't. No amount of justification on either side will sway the other.

 

Personally I don't believe in it. Somoeone once wrote (I'm not sure who) that you shouldn't expect the state to carry out something you wouldn't be prepared to do yourselves and I couldn't kill someone in cold blood.

 

I'm sure there are many here who would claim they could do that job without hesitation and possibly they could. I would say being brave behind a keyboard is entirely different to actually murdering someone but that's just me. I'm glad we don't have a death penalty here.

 

I would happily be put to the test on this one. If you put Ian Huntley in front of me and a loaded gun in my hand he would not survive very long; although the first few shots would not kill him as I would 'accidentaly' shoot off his nuts and kneecaps first.

 

And this is not bravery behind a keyboard but someone who has spent 25 years in the military, which one really shouldn't do unless they are prepared to kill when necessary and justified.

 

By the way, are you glad that Huntley has his 3 square meals a day, and has a nice TV to watch, etc, whilst enjoying better comforts than are afforded to those who risk their lives for Queen and country every day?

[Ponty]

Some people here talk as though there's no middle ground between Xboxes and LCD TVs in the cell and torture/murder.

 

Surely the best solution is simply to make prison a punishment rather than an inconvenience?

[bungle]

Confessions from mental people would not be enough to get through my panel of death judges, would need other smoking gun evidence.

 

You have to admit that although there are sometimes innocent people convicted there are also some cases which are free from any doubt of guilt?

 

Brilliant. A "death panel". Who gets to sit on this? How much do they get paid? How long do they consider cases for? A ridiculous, high cost, concept that is clearly a load of crap.

 

You also embarrass yourself by having no knowledge of some horrible miscarriages of justice, where people were convicted of vile crimes, but were totally innocent.

[bungle]

not really..i have gven examples of those who are guilty beyond any doubt.....then you have (probably) given those where it may or may not be certain...

 

what is the point..?

 

No he hasn't. He has given the names of people who were convicted murderers, and who were jailed for a number of years. Yet they were innocent people. You would put innocent people to death.

[Minsk]

No he hasn't. He has given the names of people who were convicted murderers, and who were jailed for a number of years. Yet they were innocent people. You would put innocent people to death.

 

Do you think Ian Huntley is ever likely to be proved innocent?

 

What are your thoughts on the scum who tortured and killed Jamie Bulger now living free and happy lives, possibly somewhere in Hampshire?

[bungle]

.I think the death penalty is a good idea, but only in extreme cases, mass murderers etc and where there is no doubt at all of guilt. I just cannot see the point of spending a fortune keeping someone like Myra Hindley inside for their whole life, they are worthless so should just be done away with.

 

I'm sick of this non-argument. Death penalties cost the taxpayer MORE than a life sentence.

 

Here is one link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/COcosttestimony.pdf

[bungle]

Do you think Ian Huntley is ever likely to be proved innocent?

 

What are your thoughts on the scum who tortured and killed Jamie Bulger now living free and happy lives, possibly somewhere in Hampshire?

 

Did anyone think Krisko would be proved innocent? I doubt Huntley is innocent, I don't really care. He shouldn't be put to death.

 

The Jamie Bulger one is slightly more difficult but, on the whole, I am content with the situation.

[Smirking_Saint]

I don't really have a sophistcated argument for this and i don't think it needs one - either you believe in the death sentence or you don't. No amount of justification on either side will sway the other.

 

Personally I don't believe in it. Somoeone once wrote (I'm not sure who) that you shouldn't expect the state to carry out something you wouldn't be prepared to do yourselves and I couldn't kill someone in cold blood.

 

I'm sure there are many here who would claim they could do that job without hesitation and possibly they could. I would say being brave behind a keyboard is entirely different to actually murdering someone but that's just me. I'm glad we don't have a death penalty here.

 

If somebody raped or murdered a member of my family or my girlfriend, kids etc, i would happily end his/her life for the 'state'

 

Even if i had to smuggle a gun into the court room, why do you think you hear of so many criminals sneering and smiling in the courtroom ?? Because it's an easy way out. Beat someone half to death, you may go down for a while, you may get let off.

 

So yeah, i would be up for doing some time for it.

[Smirking_Saint]

Did anyone think Krisko would be proved innocent? I doubt Huntley is innocent, I don't really care. He shouldn't be put to death.

 

The Jamie Bulger one is slightly more difficult but, on the whole, I am content with the situation.

 

They should be strung up or put away for life, case closed

[badgerx16]

If somebody raped or murdered a member of my family or my girlfriend, kids etc, i would happily end his/her life for the 'state'

 

Even if i had to smuggle a gun into the court room, why do you think you hear of so many criminals sneering and smiling in the courtroom ?? Because it's an easy way out. Beat someone half to death, you may go down for a while, you may get let off.

 

But what if the person on trial for the crime had not done it ?

[Smirking_Saint]

But what if the person on trial for the crime had not done it ?

 

I would obviously have to be pretty sure myself, not just murder anyone, everything is relative. I am not saying the death penalty is an option for anyone other that a dead cert.

 

Like someone said before, 'head in fridge' etc.

[badgerx16]

I would obviously have to be pretty sure myself, not just murder anyone, everything is relative. I am not saying the death penalty is an option for anyone other that a dead cert.

 

Like someone said before, 'head in fridge' etc.

So, if I kill somebody, and put their head in your fridge ?.........

[Smirking_Saint]

So, if I kill somebody, and put their head in your fridge ?.........

 

We can go round this all night long, it's getting very pedantic, you know what i meant. Overwhelming evidence and all that.

[bungle]

Load of rubbish. People have been in prison well over 2 decades on death row, you would call them a "dead cert". They then turned out to be innocent.

[Minsk]

 

The Jamie Bulger one is slightly more difficult but, on the whole, I am content with the situation.

 

How can any sane person be 'content' with this?

 

:confused:

 

Would you be 'content' if the same happened to your child and his/her murderers?

 

If not, why is it okay for the murderers of someone else's child?

[Smirking_Saint]

Load of rubbish. People have been in prison well over 2 decades on death row, you would call them a "dead cert". They then turned out to be innocent.

 

What would you rather then Bungle ??

 

God i hope you never run for PM, free cotton wool for everyone ??

 

Safety goggles and hard hats from the moment you leave the house ??

[badgerx16]

We can go round this all night long, it's getting very pedantic, you know what i meant. Overwhelming evidence and all that.

Of course I understand. The issue for me is that today's 'overwhelming evidence' can become tomorrow's disproved theory. I can see the argument as regards Huntley or the Wests, they are / were monsters, I have no problem in stating that. But as I have said before on this thread, where do you draw the line ? How flexible can the 'Death Judges' be in their assessment ? Who controls or verifies their decisions ? Do you allow a right of appeal against them ? Do you allow the Minister of Justice to sway their considerations ? What is the influence of the 'popular' press ?

 

Such a system will prove almost impossible to define, let alone control to the extent you can guarantee it is always 100% correct.

Edited 16 September, 2009 by badgerx16

[sotonjoe]

I expect they ****ed it up on purpose in some kind of sick attempt at 'revenge'.

 

The death penalty is pathetic. All this eye for an eye rubbish makes us no better than animals and whoever thinks that killing a murderer is going to make them feel better after losing a loved one is nuts.

[bungle]

What would you rather then Bungle ??

 

God i hope you never run for PM, free cotton wool for everyone ??

 

Safety goggles and hard hats from the moment you leave the house ??

 

Life in prison. Solitary confinement. That is punishment. I know you want to try and make up silly sounding things to make you sound cool and knowledgable, but you aren't.

[bungle]

How can any sane person be 'content' with this?

 

:confused:

 

Would you be 'content' if the same happened to your child and his/her murderers?

 

If not, why is it okay for the murderers of someone else's child?

 

It should NOT be up to a recent victim to decide on punishment. It is then made an emotional decision, not a rational one.

[Smirking_Saint]

Life in prison. Solitary confinement. That is punishment. I know you want to try and make up silly sounding things to make you sound cool and knowledgable, but you aren't.

 

But that does not happen does it ?? Prison these days is an inconvenience and probably a place to do some criminal networking for when they get out, probably early.

 

I am not making anything up to make me sound 'cool and knowledgable' as you put it, not unless i managed to hit the nail on the head as to what your policies would be.

[Minsk]

Life in prison. Solitary confinement. That is punishment. I know you want to try and make up silly sounding things to make you sound cool and knowledgable, but you aren't.

 

Then why are you 'content' that Jamie Bulger's torturers and murderers are not only living free and happy lives but ones set up for them (at taxpayer expense) in complete anonymity?

[Big John]

I would happily be put to the test on this one. If you put Ian Huntley in front of me and a loaded gun in my hand he would not survive very long; although the first few shots would not kill him as I would 'accidentaly' shoot off his nuts and kneecaps first.

 

And this is not bravery behind a keyboard but someone who has spent 25 years in the military, which one really shouldn't do unless they are prepared to kill when necessary and justified.

 

By the way, are you glad that Huntley has his 3 square meals a day, and has a nice TV to watch, etc, whilst enjoying better comforts than are afforded to those who risk their lives for Queen and country every day?

 

 

Wow, please don't take this as provocative, but that is really quite disturbing. You say that you could not only carry out this act, but would do so in a bloodthirsty manner that some would consider to be torturing said murderer. Out of interest what in your opinion is the relevance to this subject and your military background? It does come across as you are trying to make your self sound 'really hard'. I will resist that temptaion to delve into this further as I fear that your 'defects' (don't worry, we all have them) will surface and you are probably not quite ready to face these demons.

 

Suffice to say, I really do hope that you have not killed someone in real life who you should not have. There are clear rules in the forces on this I believe, correct me if I am wrong.

 

This thread IS NOT about YOU.

 

Some, my self included would say that the only time it might be considered "necessary" to kill someone would be when you are doing it to prevent that person from killing you or perhaps another person. In my book "necessary" means just that, when you do not have a choice.

 

I am also drawn to your reference of doing things "for queen and country", well, if that be the case, well for your information YOUR queen and country does not require you to kill people convicted of murder, so you should perhaps stand at ease mate.

[Ponty]

Don't push him, John.

[Minsk]

Wow, please don't take this as provocative, but that is really quite disturbing. You say that you could not only carry out this act, but would do so in a bloodthirsty manner that some would consider to be torturing said murderer. Out of interest what in your opinion is the relevance to this subject and your military background? It does come across as you are trying to make your self sound 'really hard'. I will resist that temptaion to delve into this further as I fear that your 'defects' (don't worry, we all have them) will surface and you are probably not quite ready to face these demons.

 

Suffice to say, I really do hope that you have not killed someone in real life who you should not have. There are clear rules in the forces on this I believe, correct me if I am wrong.

 

This thread IS NOT about YOU.

 

Some, my self included would say that the only time it might be considered "necessary" to kill someone would be when you are doing it to prevent that person from killing you or perhaps another person. In my book "necessary" means just that, when you do not have a choice.

 

I am also drawn to your reference of doing things "for queen and country", well, if that be the case, well for your information YOUR queen and country does not require you to kill people convicted of murder, so you should perhaps stand at ease mate.

 

Don't push him, John.

 

 

 

 

:smt070

 

[Big John]

If somebody raped or murdered a member of my family or my girlfriend, kids etc, i would happily end his/her life for the 'state'

 

Even if i had to smuggle a gun into the court room, why do you think you hear of so many criminals sneering and smiling in the courtroom ?? Because it's an easy way out. Beat someone half to death, you may go down for a while, you may get let off.

 

So yeah, i would be up for doing some time for it.

 

 

But you wouldn't do time for it S_S, you would suffer the same fate as the person that you had killed. And ironically, I would think doing this in front of a full courtroom would possibly be considered 'beyond reasonable doubt' that has been discussed earlier on here. Or would you claim deminished responsibilty or temporary insanity. This subject is pretty clear cut, it is not necessary to kill a murderer, it really is not. What do people thin k seperates us from murderers ffs?

[Big John]

 

:smt070

 

 

Hah, missed.

 

Glad you took it as it was intened Minsk.

 

This is always an emotive subject and is extrememly uncomfortable for many people to analyse and debate rationally.

 

For what it is worth, I know someone who genuinely once felt that their families life was in danger. You know what happened to this person who had previously said that they would 'do time' for their nearset and dearest?

 

The person became paralised, albeit temporarily, they froze, simply could not move from the spot. They were quite traumatised by this fact and confided in me that they were ashamed of themselves! Such a shame as they are the sort of person that you would never guess that appears so full of self-confidence and self-esteem.

 

Suffice to say, the family came to no physical harm.

 

I would also imagine that in similar set of circumstances I could kill, but talk is cheap isn't it..

[EastleighSoulBoy]

So basically you can't really have a real opinion unless it has happened to one of your own or someone very close. In the mean time we go on footing the bill while they watch tv, play sports, have 3 meals a day etc, great.

 

I didn't say that at all. My opinion, reiterated for clarity, is that life should mean life. Furthermore it should not be, as described earlier, in a YMCA style establishment. Hard labour, little time with other prisoners etc. would be my feelings.

 

I then went on to say I'd probably not feel like that if someone had killed one of my own, meaning that the emotion would take over me, cloud my judgement and I would more than likely want them executed, if I hadn't been able to do it myself when driven by anger and pain.

[Thedelldays]

Wow, please don't take this as provocative, but that is really quite disturbing. You say that you could not only carry out this act, but would do so in a bloodthirsty manner that some would consider to be torturing said murderer. Out of interest what in your opinion is the relevance to this subject and your military background? It does come across as you are trying to make your self sound 'really hard'. I will resist that temptaion to delve into this further as I fear that your 'defects' (don't worry, we all have them) will surface and you are probably not quite ready to face these demons.

 

Suffice to say, I really do hope that you have not killed someone in real life who you should not have. There are clear rules in the forces on this I believe, correct me if I am wrong.

 

This thread IS NOT about YOU.

 

Some, my self included would say that the only time it might be considered "necessary" to kill someone would be when you are doing it to prevent that person from killing you or perhaps another person. In my book "necessary" means just that, when you do not have a choice.

 

I am also drawn to your reference of doing things "for queen and country", well, if that be the case, well for your information YOUR queen and country does not require you to kill people convicted of murder, so you should perhaps stand at ease mate.

 

 

your right at self defence...and if human life is in danger

 

I have been part of a unit that has killed people....and yes, some of them were convicted criminals (in another country)