Lethal injection,the best way?

[INFLUENCED.COM]

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

 

I think if one of mine had been a victim of such a crime I could see myself torturing the murderer in theory, in practice is the problem as, thankfully, I have never been tested and pray I never will.

When discussing catching a burglar in my house, I talk about how I will tie them up for a week in the garage and 'do' things to them and at the end of that week at 0300hrs throw them from the top of my stairs and phone the police saying I have just startled a burglar, in 'reality' I would probably be glad that they have left my house once caught and in hindsight think of how I missed my opportunity to execute my plan.

It is natural imo to have such thoughts when thinking of someone hurting, to that extent, those you love and in the act of protecting your own.

[Bath Saint]

I say string 'em up and leave them to rot on the gallows. That's what I would have done to that b*****d Hodgson who murdered poor Teresa de Simone back in 1979 in Southampton.................

 

 

 

Oh

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=450939

[Thedelldays]

I say string 'em up and leave them to rot on the gallows. That's what I would have done to that b*****d Hodgson who murdered poor Teresa de Simone back in 1979 in Southampton.................

 

 

 

Oh

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=450939

what part of "the shipmans, hindley, wests" are people not getting..?

 

the real pure evil people out there

[Smirking_Saint]

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?

 

This is the thing, at this point in time i would only do time, and time that i could justify to myself that came about from having proper vengeance on a person that had brought suffering to me or my family.

 

The thing people fail to realise is the hurt and suffering that people like this bring to the world, they destroy lives, tear apart families, and they get nothing more than banged up for a few years, with the posibility of release and probably more protection then the average person could ever want (within reason)

 

Besides, as you say, i could always claim temporary insanity etc. We all have seen 'a time to kill'

[Smirking_Saint]

I think if one of mine had been a victim of such a crime I could see myself torturing the murderer in theory, in practice is the problem as, thankfully, I have never been tested and pray I never will.

When discussing catching a burglar in my house, I talk about how I will tie them up for a week in the garage and 'do' things to them and at the end of that week at 0300hrs throw them from the top of my stairs and phone the police saying I have just startled a burglar, in 'reality' I would probably be glad that they have left my house once caught and in hindsight think of how I missed my opportunity to execute my plan.

It is natural imo to have such thoughts when thinking of someone hurting, to that extent, those you love and in the act of protecting your own.

 

As opposed to some people who post on here that would probably make them a nice cup of tea whilst they go about there business

[aintforever]

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.

 

Do I really have to explain to difference between NO doubt and REASONABLE doubt?!

 

Blimey, is this place full of 12 year olds or something?

[Clapham Saint]

Am I the only one who clicked on this expecting it to be another skate thread?

 

Oh well.

Edited 17 September, 2009 by Clapham Saint

[Viking Warrior]

19 canteen and his leftie softees are right

 

Lets be nice to all these nasty heinious murderers . pay them lots of compensation , give them all the material goods they need , 24/7 social workers etc etc.

 

If they have butchered one person or several then taking the soft option

is not on the radar screen for me. Even if they go to prison for life , they are given a soft life, tvs dvds . meals etc etc. Wheres the punishment for the likes of Ian Huntley Ian Brady etc.

 

So 19 and Co what are your view on the sharia law

 

"Within sharia law, there is a specific set of offences known as the Hadd offences. These are crimes punished by specific penalties, such as stoning, lashes or the severing of a hand. The penalties for Hadd offences are not universally adopted as law in Islamic countries.

 

Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, claim to live under pure sharia law and enforce the penalties for Hadd offences. In others, such as Pakistan, the penalties have not been enforced. The majority of Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, have not adopted Hadd offences as part of their state laws.

 

Hadd offences carry specific penalties, set by the Koran and by the prophet Mohammed. These include unlawful sexual intercourse (outside marriage); false accusation of unlawful intercourse; the drinking of alcohol; theft; and highway robbery. Sexual offences carry a penalty of stoning to death or flogging while theft is punished with cutting off a hand.

 

"This is a system of criminal law which has become a potent symbol of Islamisicing the law," says Dr Welchman. "But there is the question of whether it's actually applied in the countries which have adopted it. There is supposed to be a very high burden of proof, but that clearly often doesn't happen in practice."

 

Many Islamic countries will have adultery and the drinking of alcohol defined as criminal offences in law, but they are not defined as Hadd offences because they do not carry the Hadd penalty. They are often punishable by a prison term instead.

[badgerx16]

Do I really have to explain to difference between NO doubt and REASONABLE doubt?!

 

Blimey, is this place full of 12 year olds or something?

No, it does, however, have some members who are capable of independent thought, who refuse to act like a posse of redneck vigilantes.

 

The definition of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', coupled with the investigative and evidential powers of the Police, the prosecuting capabilities of the CPS, and the direction of the trial judges, have been demonstrated to be fallable in too many cases; cases that at the time had been proven to the complete satisfaction of the jury, the press, public opinion, and quite often the Government of the day. Cases where the appeal system had to be taken to the third or even fourth iteration before the truth was revealed.

Any system involving human judgement is capable of failure or error, and therefore, the problem is how is it ever possible to totally, 100% guarantee, EVERY TIME, completely without any chance of error, that the case has ZERO DOUBT whatsoever.

 

By all means lock the b@stards up and throw away the key; 23 hours a day solitary confinement, etc, etc. Let them suffer for the rest of their lives, the longer the better in my opinion. But we can never allow the State to take lives in this manner.

[Clapham Saint]

The definition of 'beyond a reasonable doubt', coupled with the investigative and evidential powers of the Police, the prosecuting capabilities of the CPS, and the direction of the trial judges, have been demonstrated to be fallable in too many cases; cases that at the time had been proven to the complete satisfaction of the jury, the press, public opinion, and quite often the Government of the day. Cases where the appeal system had to be taken to the third or even fourth iteration before the truth was revealed.

Any system involving human judgement is capable of failure or error, and therefore, the problem is how is it ever possible to totally, 100% guarantee, EVERY TIME, completely without any chance of error, that the case has ZERO DOUBT whatsoever.

 

By all means lock the b@stards up and throw away the key; 23 hours a day solitary confinement, etc, etc. Let them suffer for the rest of their lives, the longer the better in my opinion. But we can never allow the State to take lives in this manner.

 

 

This sums up my thoughts pretty well.

If there was an infallible method of proving guilt then fine, however until then I don't believe that we can, with clear conscience, employ the death penalty.

I have no issue with making their lives extremely unpleasant in prison however.

[Wilko]

An eye for an eye and we will all be blind.

 

State sanctioned killing is still murder, and merely lowers society to the levels of the criminal.

[aintforever]

Any system involving human judgement is capable of failure or error, and therefore, the problem is how is it ever possible to totally, 100% guarantee, EVERY TIME, completely without any chance of error, that the case has ZERO DOUBT whatsoever.

 

I disagree, like in the Fred West case you had bodys under the house, a wife who said he did it, other witnesses who said he attacked/abused them and a tape recording of someone being murdered. Even allowing for human error there is no doubt of his guilt, and there are other similar cases.

 

I'm not saying all muderers should be hung, only when it is a really depraved and cold blooded and where the case is open and shut.

[Colinjb]

I'm a firm believer that if you commit a crime under the full knowledge of what the consequences are for that crime then you have brought it on to yourself. If you commit a crime your human rights should be revoked according to the offence, not solidified.

 

Therefore, if there was a death penalty in place and someone commited murder, I wouldn't shed a tear for them.

[badgerx16]

I'm not saying all muderers should be hung, only when it is a really depraved and cold blooded and where the case is open and shut.

Which again brings us around to a measure of human judgement; how can you legally define 'depraved; or 'cold blooded' ? Is your value on such measures the same as mine, or a High Court Recorder's, or the Justice Minister's ? All such descriptions are at one end of a scale of relative values, and you have to be able to mark the point at which the law indicates sufficient 'depravity' to qualify. Cue court room, and appeal court, arguments between defence and prosecution as to how depraved the criminal actually is.

 

For instance, in the case of the Wests, there were a number of bodies under their house and garden, - agreed this indicates a level of inhumanity. But the law deals in absolutes: how many bodies would you need to bury to be judged legally 'depraved' ? If Fred West had stood trial and ultimately been found mentally ill, would that get him off your hook, despite his actions, ( surely no SANE man could do that ) ?

 

Morally the arguments seem quite simple, but when drafting and publishing Rules of Law and Acts of Parliament, the language used is always difficult to set down, and inevitably subject to judicial interpretation reflected in the post-trial assessment of test cases.

Perhaps you could introduce a new class of crime, 'Depraved Murder', a bit like the 'Murder 1' & 'Murder 2' distinction used in the States. But then you are risking ending up with the same sort of plea bargaining that they they get; plead guilty to the non-lethal crime to save the cost & trauma of a trial, and thereby escape the noose.

 

There is, sadly, no simple answer.

[badgerx16]

Therefore, if there was a death penalty in place and someone committed murder, I wouldn't shed a tear for them.

Without completely reprising the entire thread - what if it was a miscarriage of justice ?

[aintforever]

Which again brings us around to a measure of human judgement; how can you legally define 'depraved; or 'cold blooded' ? Is your value on such measures the same as mine, or a High Court Recorder's, or the Justice Minister's ? All such descriptions are at one end of a scale of relative values, and you have to be able to mark the point at which the law indicates sufficient 'depravity' to qualify. Cue court room, and appeal court, arguments between defence and prosecution as to how depraved the criminal actually is.

 

For instance, in the case of the Wests, there were a number of bodies under their house and garden, - agreed this indicates a level of inhumanity. But the law deals in absolutes: how many bodies would you need to bury to be judged legally 'depraved' ? If Fred West had stood trial and ultimately been found mentally ill, would that get him off your hook, despite his actions, ( surely no SANE man could do that ) ?

 

Morally the arguments seem quite simple, but when drafting and publishing Rules of Law and Acts of Parliament, the language used is always difficult to set down, and inevitably subject to judicial interpretation reflected in the post-trial assessment of test cases.

Perhaps you could introduce a new class of crime, 'Depraved Murder', a bit like the 'Murder 1' & 'Murder 2' distinction used in the States. But then you are risking ending up with the same sort of plea bargaining that they they get; plead guilty to the non-lethal crime to save the cost & trauma of a trial, and thereby escape the noose.

 

There is, sadly, no simple answer.

 

But surely every single crime is subject judicial interpretation and there are never specific lines as each crime has different circumstances. Remember it's not the guilt which is in question it's just the level of sentencing which is always down to the judges judgement. The 'Murder 1' & 'Murder 2' distinction shows clearly how this could work.

 

The "without ANY doubt" bit is the hard thing but there is no reason why a team of judges couldn't study the evidence and make sure a conviction is safe to procede with capital punishment. It would mean alot of murderers would only get life but could mean proper justice is handed out to some of those who deserve it.

[Manuel]

As opposed to some people who post on here that would probably make them a nice cup of tea whilst they go about there business

 

Only if I was making one. They can sugar it themselves though.

[badgerx16]

But surely every single crime is subject judicial interpretation and there are never specific lines as each crime has different circumstances. Remember it's not the guilt which is in question it's just the level of sentencing which is always down to the judges judgement. The 'Murder 1' & 'Murder 2' distinction shows clearly how this could work.

 

The "without ANY doubt" bit is the hard thing but there is no reason why a team of judges couldn't study the evidence and make sure a conviction is safe to proceed with capital punishment. It would mean a lot of murderers would only get life but could mean proper justice is handed out to some of those who deserve it.

 

Let's agree to differ, I do not think I will ever sway you, and personally there is no way I will ever be convinced there can be a 'safe' way of managing state sanctioned murder.

 

( Mind you, my wife has just suggested a variation on the theme of 'capital punishment'; anybody who fails to use an upper-case presentation for the personal pronoun deserves to be shot :smt036 )

[EastleighSoulBoy]

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.

 

I am a left wing socialist voter. I don't always agree with 19C but he, and later I (as quoted above), did not advocate being 'soft' in any form. So, did it not suit your rabid right wing rant to read our posts correctly?

 

19 canteen and his leftie softees are right

 

Lets be nice to all these nasty heinious murderers . pay them lots of compensation , give them all the material goods they need , 24/7 social workers etc etc.

 

If they have butchered one person or several then taking the soft option

is not on the radar screen for me. Even if they go to prison for life , they are given a soft life, tvs dvds . meals etc etc. Wheres the punishment for the likes of Ian Huntley Ian Brady etc.

 

So 19 and Co what are your view on the sharia law

 

"Within sharia law, there is a specific set of offences known as the Hadd offences. These are crimes punished by specific penalties, such as stoning, lashes or the severing of a hand. The penalties for Hadd offences are not universally adopted as law in Islamic countries.

 

Some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, claim to live under pure sharia law and enforce the penalties for Hadd offences. In others, such as Pakistan, the penalties have not been enforced. The majority of Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, have not adopted Hadd offences as part of their state laws.

 

Hadd offences carry specific penalties, set by the Koran and by the prophet Mohammed. These include unlawful sexual intercourse (outside marriage); false accusation of unlawful intercourse; the drinking of alcohol; theft; and highway robbery. Sexual offences carry a penalty of stoning to death or flogging while theft is punished with cutting off a hand.

 

"This is a system of criminal law which has become a potent symbol of Islamisicing the law," says Dr Welchman. "But there is the question of whether it's actually applied in the countries which have adopted it. There is supposed to be a very high burden of proof, but that clearly often doesn't happen in practice."

 

Many Islamic countries will have adultery and the drinking of alcohol defined as criminal offences in law, but they are not defined as Hadd offences because they do not carry the Hadd penalty. They are often punishable by a prison term instead.

[saintwarwick]

Noose - Neck - done

 

Or Axe - neck - done

 

F*ck being humane, these bastards were hardly humane when carrying out their crimes

 

Absolutely, agree 100%, I'd make them suffer an agonising death.

[Manuel]

I'd kill them twice over.

[Clapham Saint]

But surely every single crime is subject judicial interpretation and there are never specific lines as each crime has different circumstances. Remember it's not the guilt which is in question it's just the level of sentencing which is always down to the judges judgement. The 'Murder 1' & 'Murder 2' distinction shows clearly how this could work.

 

The "without ANY doubt" bit is the hard thing but there is no reason why a team of judges couldn't study the evidence and make sure a conviction is safe to procede with capital punishment. It would mean alot of murderers would only get life but could mean proper justice is handed out to some of those who deserve it.

 

Even if you were able to come up with a system which would only result in 1 in 1000000 murder convictions being wrong, for me killing the 1 in 1000000 is 1 too many.

 

For all the (quite reasonable) arguments for the death penatly I do not consider the risk (however small) of killing an innocent person to be justified.

 

Leave murderers to rot in a stinking cell, fine, but you can't reverse an execution.

[benjii]

Absolutely correct - not having a death penalty in this country separates us thankfully from those red necks in America that do. Living the rest of their lives in purgatory for their heinous crimes with 23 hours in a locked cell is probably a greater punishment than the chance to end it all.

 

The issue is not the death penalty ( too many miscarriages of justice for it to be warranted let alone living in a society that condones barbarous justice) but how prisoners are allowed to live out their life on Death Row or for any crime that carries a 'life' sentence. Having a sports day to raise morale at Broadmoor doesn't really meet what should be the remit for serving a life sentence for mass murder.

 

There are better ways to make criminals on the very margins of society pay for their crimes and it is not giving them a quick get out by a bullet in the head, a rope around their neck, a lethal ****tail in their viens or plugging them into the National Grid. Likewise, payment is not delivered by unlimited social contact with other cell mates, access to telephones, TVs, pool tables or ping pong. Life should mean life but no court should be able to play god and an innocent man can be brought back from purgatory but not hell.

 

Great post!

[benjii]

People who say, "I support it when there is no doubt of guilt" are completely missing two important points:

 

1) Anyone convicted of a crime has been proven to have committed that crime "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a high threshold. It doesn't make sense to say that some are more guilty than others. By definition, to doubt their guilt is supposed to be unreasonable (but we know in practice the system does not always work).

 

2) Regardless of the above, what is the test for determining whether there is "no doubt" of guilt? However you frame the test, wherever you draw the line, there will be shades of grey. Innocent people will be murdered.

 

And as to the "it would be cheaper to kill them".... great argument. Nice one. Dozey pillocks.

 

Personally, I would rather pay for a murderer to be locked up for life than pay for a lazy, idler to sit on their fat arse and watch Jerry Springer all day at home (at least the incarceration has an obvious purpose). I don't think I should be able to remedy this by murdering them though.

[harvey]

Why is living in a cell for 23 hours a day sufficient punishment, they may enjoy it.

 

Only one question should be asked when they are found guilty.......Rare, Medium or Well Done?

[benjii]

Why is living in a cell for 23 hours a day sufficient punishment, they may enjoy it.

 

Only one question should be asked when they are found guilty.......Rare, Medium or Well Done?

 

Good point! Gold star for Harvey. Can't believe no one thought of that.

[harvey]

Great post!

 

People who say, "I support it when there is no doubt of guilt" are completely missing two important points:

 

1) Anyone convicted of a crime has been proven to have committed that crime "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a high threshold. It doesn't make sense to say that some are more guilty than others. By definition, to doubt their guilt is supposed to be unreasonable (but we know in practice the system does not always work).

 

2) Regardless of the above, what is the test for determining whether there is "no doubt" of guilt? However you frame the test, wherever you draw the line, there will be shades of grey. Innocent people will be murdered.

 

And as to the "it would be cheaper to kill them".... great argument. Nice one. Dozey pillocks.

 

Personally, I would rather pay for a murderer to be locked up for life than pay for a lazy, idler to sit on their fat arse and watch Jerry Springer all day at home (at least the incarceration has an obvious purpose). I don't think I should be able to remedy this by murdering them though.

 

So if I can get hold of the bill for putting up Huntley for the rest of his life....you're saying that you're willing to pay for it personally then?

[benjii]

So if I can get hold of the bill for putting up Huntley for the rest of his life....you're saying that you're willing to pay for it personally then?

 

No, I couldn't afford to. I'm surprised if you think that is what I was saying. Neither could I finance a fat, lazy slob through their benefit career but I would rather contribute to the former.

 

I think it is a perfectly valid use of my tax money and that to include financial grounds as a factor when deciding on whether people should be murdered or not is rather disgusting and facile.

[harvey]

No, I couldn't afford to. I'm surprised if you think that is what I was saying. Neither could I finance a fat, lazy slob through their benefit career but I would rather contribute to the former.

 

I think it is a perfectly valid use of my tax money and that to include financial grounds as a factor when deciding on whether people should be murdered or not is rather disgusting and facile.

 

Why are you surprised :confused:, you said "personally I would rather pay for a murderer to be locked up for life"............I just nominated Huntley on your behalf and you declined

 

Sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick fella :butthead:

[aintforever]

People who say, "I support it when there is no doubt of guilt" are completely missing two important points:

 

1) Anyone convicted of a crime has been proven to have committed that crime "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a high threshold. It doesn't make sense to say that some are more guilty than others. By definition, to doubt their guilt is supposed to be unreasonable (but we know in practice the system does not always work).

 

2) Regardless of the above, what is the test for determining whether there is "no doubt" of guilt? However you frame the test, wherever you draw the line, there will be shades of grey. Innocent people will be murdered.

 

And as to the "it would be cheaper to kill them".... great argument. Nice one. Dozey pillocks.

 

Personally, I would rather pay for a murderer to be locked up for life than pay for a lazy, idler to sit on their fat arse and watch Jerry Springer all day at home (at least the incarceration has an obvious purpose). I don't think I should be able to remedy this by murdering them though.

 

You must be thick if you don't understand the difference between reasonable doubt and no doubt. Some court cases are open and shut with overwhelming evidence, others hinge on the odd bit of forensics or an eyewitness testimony etc.

[rocknrollman no2]

If we still had the death penalty,then the man who was locked up for 27 years for the murder of a Southampton woman,wouldve been killed although he was totally innocent.

Lets ask him if he believes in the death penalty.

How can the state say its wrong to kill,yet then say you are going to have to die for doing it?

[Arizona]

People who say, "I support it when there is no doubt of guilt" are completely missing two important points:

 

1) Anyone convicted of a crime has been proven to have committed that crime "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a high threshold. It doesn't make sense to say that some are more guilty than others. By definition, to doubt their guilt is supposed to be unreasonable (but we know in practice the system does not always work).

 

2) Regardless of the above, what is the test for determining whether there is "no doubt" of guilt? However you frame the test, wherever you draw the line, there will be shades of grey. Innocent people will be murdered.

 

And as to the "it would be cheaper to kill them".... great argument. Nice one. Dozey pillocks.

 

Personally, I would rather pay for a murderer to be locked up for life than pay for a lazy, idler to sit on their fat arse and watch Jerry Springer all day at home (at least the incarceration has an obvious purpose). I don't think I should be able to remedy this by murdering them though.

 

No it doesn't. Not for some homicidal wack-job with 15 life sentences for raped, torture and murder. No chance of rehabilitation or release from prison and they would deserve (IMO, although this is a matter of fierce debate) to die.

 

And there is no way on Earth a couple of 9mm rounds are more expensive than upwards of 50 years of food, heating, electricity, guards, medical expenses etc.

 

As for being on death row for 25 odd years, f**k that. That's how the American's chose to do it, but the Iraqis got Saddam done and dusted in a few weeks.

 

And as has been pointed out, there is a difference in the levels of "doubt" surrounding a conviction". You could put together a case beyond reasonable doubt with forensics, eye witnesses etc. However I would reserve execution for cases which were beyond all doubt. Not being privy to the exact details of forensic investigation, I cannot say where the line would lie here, but there comes a point when you can say 100% that a person is guilty.

[badgerx16]

, I cannot say where the line would lie here, but there comes a point when you can say 100% that a person is guilty.

On the scale of 1 to 100 then, given that 100 is totally without any possibility of doubt, where does the line get drawn, before which you are innocent ?

 

Surely everybody in jail should be 100% guilty ? What if you were 97% guilty, do you still get sent down ?, or 90 % ?, or 85%.

 

Does the jury come back with 'Your Honour, we find the accused 78% guilty as charged", in response to which the Judge give 78% of the standard tarrif jail term.

 

Sean Hodgson was found 100% guilty of the murder of Teresa De Simone, in Southampton. He served 27 years in jail and was only released when a DNA sample was taken from the exhumed body of another man who had confessed to the crime, and the sample matched what was taken at the scene.

 

What percentage of guilt applied to the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombers ? Was Paul Hill only 93% guilty of blowing people up ? ( When in fact he was 100% innocent ! ).

[harvey]

If we still had the death penalty,then the man who was locked up for 27 years for the murder of a Southampton woman,wouldve been killed although he was totally innocent.

Lets ask him if he believes in the death penalty.

How can the state say its wrong to kill,yet then say you are going to have to die for doing it?

 

Maybe if the death penalty was still in use 27 years ago, the idiot wouldn't have 'confessed' to murdering Teresa De Simone.

[rocknrollman no2]

Maybe if the death penalty was still in use 27 years ago, the idiot wouldn't have 'confessed' to murdering Teresa De Simone.

 

 

So you think the death penalty is a deterrent?

The fact that there are so many people on death row in America would prove otherwise.

[badgerx16]

Maybe if the death penalty was still in use 27 years ago, the idiot wouldn't have 'confessed' to murdering Teresa De Simone.

Maybe you might be able to understand the concept of somebody being mentally ill. Calling disabled people 'idiot' isn't really helpful.

[saint boggy]

i don't have particularly strong views on either side of the argument...there are pros and there are cons (if you'll pardon the pun) ...like people on here say, there are so many variables to each case that you cannot really have a blanket ruling, UNLESS there is indisputable evidence (multiple witnesses + DNA evidence,etc)....there is far too high a risk that innocent people would be killed in the name of justice. BUT there are people who could not POSSIBLY be rehabilitated, those who do not deserve to breath the same air as you or i, but who gets to decide where that line is drawn????..i don't know...:confused:

 

the one thing that always causes me to question the death penalty's validity is the fact that it is imposed in a country as a deterrent yeh??........... now, given the US's murder/mass murder statistics , it doesn't appear to be much of a deterrent there, does it........:-|

[bungle]

And there is no way on Earth a couple of 9mm rounds are more expensive than upwards of 50 years of food, heating, electricity, guards, medical expenses etc.

 

Studies into the death penalty ALL indicate that it costs the state MORE to use the death penalty than to imprison someone for life.

 

Anyway, the major point in this argument to me is that state sanctioned murder is still murder. We become no better than the criminal. The state doesn't not have a right to take someones life. It would absolutely disgust me if the wacky loonies like and colin"loon in chief"jb got their way.

[benjii]

No it doesn't. Not for some homicidal wack-job with 15 life sentences for raped, torture and murder. No chance of rehabilitation or release from prison and they would deserve (IMO, although this is a matter of fierce debate) to die.

 

And there is no way on Earth a couple of 9mm rounds are more expensive than upwards of 50 years of food, heating, electricity, guards, medical expenses etc.

 

As for being on death row for 25 odd years, f**k that. That's how the American's chose to do it, but the Iraqis got Saddam done and dusted in a few weeks.

 

And as has been pointed out, there is a difference in the levels of "doubt" surrounding a conviction". You could put together a case beyond reasonable doubt with forensics, eye witnesses etc. However I would reserve execution for cases which were beyond all doubt. Not being privy to the exact details of forensic investigation, I cannot say where the line would lie here, but there comes a point when you can say 100% that a person is guilty.

 

So, I refer you to point 2 which is this:

 

How do you formulate a reliable, 100% test for when there is "no doubt"?

 

You can't, at the end of the day someone will have to make a call and sooner or later they will make the wrong one.

 

PS. In any case, this section of the debate is purely about the practical application of a death penalty in the most just way. It doesn't even touch on the correct point raised by Bungle, above.

[benjii]

On the scale of 1 to 100 then, given that 100 is totally without any possibility of doubt, where does the line get drawn, before which you are innocent ?

 

Surely everybody in jail should be 100% guilty ? What if you were 97% guilty, do you still get sent down ?, or 90 % ?, or 85%.

 

Does the jury come back with 'Your Honour, we find the accused 78% guilty as charged", in response to which the Judge give 78% of the standard tarrif jail term.

 

Sean Hodgson was found 100% guilty of the murder of Teresa De Simone, in Southampton. He served 27 years in jail and was only released when a DNA sample was taken from the exhumed body of another man who had confessed to the crime, and the sample matched what was taken at the scene.

 

What percentage of guilt applied to the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombers ? Was Paul Hill only 93% guilty of blowing people up ? ( When in fact he was 100% innocent ! ).

 

Exactly.

[aintforever]

On the scale of 1 to 100 then, given that 100 is totally without any possibility of doubt, where does the line get drawn, before which you are innocent ?

 

Surely everybody in jail should be 100% guilty ? What if you were 97% guilty, do you still get sent down ?, or 90 % ?, or 85%.

 

Does the jury come back with 'Your Honour, we find the accused 78% guilty as charged", in response to which the Judge give 78% of the standard tarrif jail term.

 

Sean Hodgson was found 100% guilty of the murder of Teresa De Simone, in Southampton. He served 27 years in jail and was only released when a DNA sample was taken from the exhumed body of another man who had confessed to the crime, and the sample matched what was taken at the scene.

 

What percentage of guilt applied to the Birmingham and Guildford pub bombers ? Was Paul Hill only 93% guilty of blowing people up ? ( When in fact he was 100% innocent ! ).

 

Are you 12 years old or just completely stupid?

 

All those people you mentioned were found guilty beyond REASONABLE doubt, get that REASONABLE - look it up in a dictionary.

 

Reasonable is different to no doubt, let me illustrate for your tiny little brain.

 

Man 1 is found guilty of murder on the basis of a couple of Police eye witness statements, the gun was found at his house which matched the bullet and police found gunpowder fragments on his clothes and body, plus he had a motive. He is rightly convicted as it is beyond reasonable doubt despite him claiming a stitch up.

 

Man 2 is caught clearly on CCTV shooting someone in the face, he is immediately caught at the scene by Police in full view of numerous witnesses, with the gun in his hand. He admits the crime.

 

There is no doubt man 2 did the crime, man 1, though guilty, in theory could have been the victim of an elaborate plan so wouldn't hang. Is that clear enough for you?

[badgerx16]

Are you 12 years old or just completely stupid?

 

All those people you mentioned were found guilty beyond REASONABLE doubt, get that REASONABLE - look it up in a dictionary.

 

Reasonable is different to no doubt, let me illustrate for your tiny little brain.

 

Man 1 is found guilty of murder on the basis of a couple of Police eye witness statements, the gun was found at his house which matched the bullet and police found gunpowder fragments on his clothes and body, plus he had a motive. He is rightly convicted as it is beyond reasonable doubt despite him claiming a stitch up.

 

Man 2 is caught clearly on CCTV shooting someone in the face, he is immediately caught at the scene by Police in full view of numerous witnesses, with the gun in his hand. He admits the crime.

 

There is no doubt man 2 did the crime, man 1, though guilty, in theory could have been the victim of an elaborate plan so wouldn't hang. Is that clear enough for you?

If you want to hide your insecurities and lack of intellect behind insults fine, but try to understand the written form of the English language. This is a debate, there are, in reality, more than simply two perspectives to it. And you, my 'friend', are not necessarily right. I hate to point that out, and no doubt it comes as a shock, but try to grow up sufficiently to accept the truth of the situation.

[Arizona]

Studies into the death penalty ALL indicate that it costs the state MORE to use the death penalty than to imprison someone for life.

 

Anyway, the major point in this argument to me is that state sanctioned murder is still murder. We become no better than the criminal. The state doesn't not have a right to take someones life. It would absolutely disgust me if the wacky loonies like and colin"loon in chief"jb got their way.

 

Ever heard of an eye for an eye?

 

I think execution (or murder as you call it) is a perfect punishment for some people. What about the scum who repeatedly abused and then killed Baby P or Ian Huntley, Fred West etc?

 

If there is a death penalty it is the murderer's choice. They CHOSE to kill someone, therefore they have to accept the consequences.

 

You say the state does not have the right to take someone's life. What about the Battle of Britain? All those Germans flying over and what do we do? Get in spitfires and go and shoot them. Murdering bastards those RAF types, we should have just surrendered the moment Hitler invaded Poland.

 

My point is not all killings are murder. In the case of people like West, Huntley etc I think it is a just punnishment. Perhaps if the death penalty were a punishment there'd be a few less hoodies knifing people on Britain's streets.

 

And I don't care what you tell me, in Phoenix I bought 10 shotgun cartridges for $5. Maybe if you want to do it the American way and keep inmates in a maximum security prison for 25 years before you kill them it would cost more, but that just defies the point IMO.

[harvey]

Maybe you might be able to understand the concept of somebody being mentally ill. Calling disabled people 'idiot' isn't really helpful.

 

I'm not trying to be helpful, I'm just saying what I think.......I couldn't careless whether he's mentally ill or not.

 

I'm thinking of TD's parents who went through 27 years thinking that their daughters killer was behind bars, only for it all to be bought up again.

If that dickhead hadn't been a retard and ****ed about with the investigation 27 years ago, maybe DL might have been caught and convicted for what he'd done.

 

Whatever, if you murder someone you deserve to die.

[saint boggy]

Ever heard of an eye for an eye?

 

I think execution (or murder as you call it) is a perfect punishment for some people. What about the scum who repeatedly abused and then killed Baby P or Ian Huntley, Fred West etc?

 

If there is a death penalty it is the murderer's choice. They CHOSE to kill someone, therefore they have to accept the consequences.

 

You say the state does not have the right to take someone's life. What about the Battle of Britain? All those Germans flying over and what do we do? Get in spitfires and go and shoot them. Murdering bastards those RAF types, we should have just surrendered the moment Hitler invaded Poland.

 

My point is not all killings are murder. In the case of people like West, Huntley etc I think it is a just punnishment. Perhaps if the death penalty were a punishment there'd be a few less hoodies knifing people on Britain's streets.

 

And I don't care what you tell me, in Phoenix I bought 10 shotgun cartridges for $5. Maybe if you want to do it the American way and keep inmates in a maximum security prison for 25 years before you kill them it would cost more, but that just defies the point IMO.

 

 

yeh, coz that works in America doesn't it........:roll:

the death penalty is NOT a deterrent.....

and ,as the saying goes, and eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.......

Edited 19 September, 2009 by saint boggy

[aintforever]

If you want to hide your insecurities and lack of intellect behind insults fine, but try to understand the written form of the English language. This is a debate, there are, in reality, more than simply two perspectives to it. And you, my 'friend', are not necessarily right. I hate to point that out, and no doubt it comes as a shock, but try to grow up sufficiently to accept the truth of the situation.

 

Insults aside, you fail to answer any of my points about about some convictions being safer than others and how the death penalty could easily be introduced for those cases where there is no possible doubt of guilt.

[badgerx16]

 

I'm thinking of TD's parents who went through 27 years thinking that their daughters killer was behind bars, only for it all to be bought up again.

If that dickhead hadn't been a retard and ****ed about with the investigation 27 years ago, maybe DL might have been caught and convicted for what he'd done.

 

.

Perhaps if the Police had investigated the case properly, his 'Walter Mitty' story would have been exposed at the time, and the real perpetrator tracked down.

[harvey]

Perhaps if the Police had investigated the case properly, his 'Walter Mitty' story would have been exposed at the time, and the real perpetrator tracked down.

 

Can't really argue with that, but the police were limited at the time with what they could prove (forensically (sp) I mean).

 

It was a long time ago.........do you remember it?

[badgerx16]

Insults aside, you fail to answer any of my points about about some convictions being safer than others and how the death penalty could easily be introduced for those cases where there is no possible doubt of guilt.

If you read back through my entries on this thread, I think you will get an understanding of why I think the concept you propose is flawed.

 

The principal problems are (1) how to LEGALLY DEFINE what '100% certainty' actually means. Remember, it is not something in the 'look and feel' of the case or the evidence, it has to be something defined in Law, written in Statute, and tested in court by lawyers and judges.

and (2) any system involving Human decisions is prone to Human frailties, ( even Judges make mistakes ), so IMO, better to err on the side of caution.

 

Just to be clear, there are absolutely no circumstances under which I would ever accept the application of the death penalty. What happens in other jurisdictions is not at issue, in this country we are better off without it. End of. ( Please note, you are perfectly at liberty to hold an alternative view, I won't hold it against you nor think any the less of you )

 

As a last point, why is the per-capita murder rate in the USofA more than 3 times higher than in this country, yet they HAVE the deterrence of the 'final solution' ?

[badgerx16]

Can't really argue with that, but the police were limited at the time with what they could prove (forensically (sp) I mean).

 

It was a long time ago.........do you remember it?

It happened the year after I moved up here, and as it was only on the local ( South Today, Echo, etc ) news, I never became acquainted with the case at the time.

The main local miscarriage up here was Stephan Kisko, who was convicted of the murder of Lesley Mulseed, but eventually released after 16 years inside, when three of the prosecution witnesses, teenage girls at the time of the trial, admitted they had 'lied for a laugh'. Also, there had been forensic evidence available before the trial that proved he could not have been the killer, but the West Yorkshire Police failed to reveal this to the defence lawyers.