Lethal injection,the best way?

[Arizona]

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.......

 

The problem in America is the right to bare arms. It's a stupid "right" which means any old f*ckwit can walk into a gunstore, buy a couple of assault rifles and go fire off a few rounds in the local primary school.

 

In Britain I think it would be different. Would it eradicate violent crime? No of course not, but I do think some people would think twice before leaving their house packing heat.

 

An eye for an eye does not leave everyone blind, only those who CHOOSE to commit murder. Bungle repeatedly refers to murder by the state as still being murder. I can't be arse to argue that point, but I will say it is the murders choice. You CHOOSE to muder someone, you have to accept the consequences. If the consequences are being executed then well, you'd better take it easy on the murdering for a while. We're not talking about slaughtering the innocent here, it IS a choice. If you don't muder, you don't get executed.

 

As for the whole reasonable doubt/all doubt debate... if you can't tell the differene you're a f**kin reject. People are convicted on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Murderers should only be sentences to death if you say absolutely 100% that they did it. I'm not for sentencing people on a whim, but if a crowd of people see a man pull out a machine gun and start mowing down passers by, I think it's fairly safe to assume they are guilty.

[hamster]

Just out of interest, who was the last person to suffer the death penalty in Britain, and what was the crime?

[saint boggy]

The problem in America is the right to bare arms. It's a stupid "right" which means any old f*ckwit can walk into a gunstore, buy a couple of assault rifles and go fire off a few rounds in the local primary school.

 

In Britain I think it would be different. Would it eradicate violent crime? No of course not, but I do think some people would think twice before leaving their house packing heat.

 

An eye for an eye does not leave everyone blind, only those who CHOOSE to commit murder. Bungle repeatedly refers to murder by the state as still being murder. I can't be arse to argue that point, but I will say it is the murders choice. You CHOOSE to muder someone, you have to accept the consequences. If the consequences are being executed then well, you'd better take it easy on the murdering for a while. We're not talking about slaughtering the innocent here, it IS a choice. If you don't muder, you don't get executed.

 

As for the whole reasonable doubt/all doubt debate... if you can't tell the differene you're a f**kin reject. People are convicted on evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Murderers should only be sentences to death if you say absolutely 100% that they did it. I'm not for sentencing people on a whim, but if a crowd of people see a man pull out a machine gun and start mowing down passers by, I think it's fairly safe to assume they are guilty.

exactly my point though!!!.....they do this KNOWING that the penalty will be death.....but yet, they STILL do it........hence NO DETERRENT WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!.

[aintforever]

exactly my point though!!!.....they do this KNOWING that the penalty will be death.....but yet, they STILL do it........hence NO DETERRENT WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!.

 

Why does it matter if it's a deterrent or not, it's about justice.

[harvey]

Just out of interest, who was the last person to suffer the death penalty in Britain, and what was the crime?

 

Ruth Ellis was the last woman.......don't know the last chap tho' :smt102

[saint boggy]

Why does it matter if it's a deterrent or not, it's about justice.

because people on here were going on about how having the death penalty would stop people/reduce the numbers of people committing murder....which is complete nonsense!!!!....

[harvey]

exactly my point though!!!.....they do this KNOWING that the penalty will be death.....but yet, they STILL do it........hence NO DETERRENT WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!.

 

Kill em anyway.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Ruth Ellis was the last woman.......don't know the last chap tho' :smt102

 

Was it David Bentley? Or was he the catalyst for the abolition of the Death Penalty as he was the last person to pay the ultimate price for a crime he didn't commit.

 

Don't we still technically have the death penalty for Treason or was that abolished as well in the past few years - i can vaguely remember something about it being discussed in the media a while back but not sure what happened.

[saint boggy]

Kill em anyway.

helpful..........thanx for your input!!

[Smirking_Saint]

Was it David Bentley? Or was he the catalyst for the abolition of the Death Penalty as he was the last person to pay the ultimate price for a crime he didn't commit.

 

Don't we still technically have the death penalty for Treason or was that abolished as well in the past few years - i can vaguely remember something about it being discussed in the media a while back but not sure what happened.

 

No, the death penalty for high treason (which was hung, drawn and quartered) was last used in 1946.

 

It has since been abolished and is now life imprisonment.

[harvey]

Was it David Bentley? Or was he the catalyst for the abolition of the Death Penalty as he was the last person to pay the ultimate price for a crime he didn't commit.

 

Don't we still technically have the death penalty for Treason or was that abolished as well in the past few years - i can vaguely remember something about it being discussed in the media a while back but not sure what happened.

 

Are you asking me or are you telling me 19c ?.........you're a funny fella but I really can't be arsed to get into an arguement at this time of night

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63d4Z5aue5U&feature=PlayList&p=BF33CD44E12B62E1&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=66

[hamster]

Ruth Ellis was the last woman.......don't know the last chap tho' :smt102

 

Even Albert Pierrepoint, her executioner changed his tune eventually:

 

"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."

 

And there you have it, even those in favour can not agree who should hang, some of us who oppose it would conside rit for killers of our loved ones.

 

He wanted to be an executioner (like his father and Uncle) from the age of 11, 11 ffs.

 

He had a change of heart after hanging a man who he had drank with in his local, they sang Danny Boy together, then the chap went out and in a drunken state murdered his two-timing girlfriend! Crime of passion, a hanging offence?

[hamster]

No, the death penalty for high treason (which was hung, drawn and quartered) was last used in 1946.

 

It has since been abolished and is now life imprisonment.

 

Lord Haw Haw?

[harvey]

Even Albert Pierrepoint, her executioner changed his tune eventually:

 

"I have come to the conclusion that executions solve nothing, and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge which takes the easy way and hands over the responsibility for revenge to other people...The trouble with the death penalty has always been that nobody wanted it for everybody, but everybody differed about who should get off."

 

And there you have it, even those in favour can not agree who should hang, some of us who oppose it would conside rit for killers of our loved ones.

 

He wanted to be an executioner (like his father and Uncle) from the age of 11, 11 ffs.

 

He had a change of heart after hanging a man who he had drank with in his local, they sang Danny Boy together, then the chap went out and in a drunken state murdered his two-timing girlfriend! Crime of passion, a hanging offence?

 

In France its a crime of passion isn't it Hammy ?

[Smirking_Saint]

Lord Haw Haw?

 

William Joyce

[harvey]

helpful..........thanx for your input!!

 

No worries, that's how we do things around these parts.......Ye hahhhhhhhhhhh

[saint boggy]

No worries, that's how we do things around these parts.......Ye hahhhhhhhhhhh

your post would be funny, if it wasn't such an accurate depiction of how some people actually think!!!

[hamster]

In France its a crime of passion isn't it Hammy ?

I believe that Ruth Ellis' crime was that of a cuckquean (sp), but in France it's known as 'crime passionnel'. However I have never killed anyone in France, so can't say for sure. Wiki knows the answers in my experience.

[saint boggy]

I believe that Ruth Ellis' crime was that of a cuckquean (sp), but in France it's known as 'crime passionnel'. However I have never killed anyone in France, so can't say for sure. Wiki knows the answers in my experience.

well, i am a cuckquean but never went and killed anyone because of it......... Ruth Ellis' crime was that of murder, let's not forget that.......should she have hanged for it though??? the law at the time says 'yes' , but i'm not so sure myself....

[saint boggy]

Why does it matter if it's a deterrent or not, it's about justice.

 

IMO , the death penalty is NOT about getting justice.....its about retribution and evening the score......

[aintforever]

IMO , the death penalty is NOT about getting justice.....its about retribution and evening the score......

 

that's where peoples views differ. Justice is about fairness.

 

If someone in my family was murdered I don't think it fair that the person who did it spends 15 years playing playstation, and be fed and kept at my expense only to leave and live a normal life when every connected to the victim has to suffer their whole life.

 

Capital punishment is not nice, but it is a hell of a lot nicer than what murderers do to their victims. Its harsh but totally fair.

 

Retribution and evening the score would be to torture them and kill them in the same way they did.

[sotonjoe]

that's where peoples views differ. Justice is about fairness.

 

If someone in my family was murdered I don't think it fair that the person who did it spends 15 years playing playstation, and be fed and kept at my expense only to leave and live a normal life when every connected to the victim has to suffer their whole life.

 

Capital punishment is not nice, but it is a hell of a lot nicer than what murderers do to their victims. Its harsh but totally fair.

 

Retribution and evening the score would be to torture them and kill them in the same way they did.

 

 

Perhaps they could go one step further and let you as the wounded-by-association family member actually do the executing, then it would be really fair ...

[SW5 SAINT]

Why does it matter if it's a deterrent or not, it's about justice.

 

The death penalty has nothing to do with justice, it is revenge pure and simple.

[gordonToo]

Two words that should end all debate on if there should be a death penalty.

 

David Bentley.

 

Or three words to select the more recent case of Teresa De Simone.

[Arizona]

exactly my point though!!!.....they do this KNOWING that the penalty will be death.....but yet, they STILL do it........hence NO DETERRENT WHATSOEVER!!!!!!!.

 

Who's to say what the murder rate in the US would be if it weren't for the death penalty. I'm not saying it would make a massive difference, but that's not my main reason for supporting it. Even if 5 innocent people a year are saved from an untimely death by the deterant, that's worth the lives of 50 murderers IMO.

[Verbal]

Who's to say what the murder rate in the US would be if it weren't for the death penalty. I'm not saying it would make a massive difference, but that's not my main reason for supporting it. Even if 5 innocent people a year are saved from an untimely death by the deterant, that's worth the lives of 50 murderers IMO.

 

So here I am looking for some quiet refuge from the rabid insanity of the BNP-sponsored EDL thread, and what do I find? Perfect formation knee-jerking - complete with self-defeating logic.

 

What if those five innocent people a year were convicted of a capital offence?

 

And here's an awkward comparison. Not all states in the US have the death penalty. The most enthusiastic state killer in the US, by far, is Texas. Their murder rate is 5.5 per 100,000. New York state does not have the death penalty. Its murder rate is 5 per 100,000.

 

Texas not only leads the US in state-sanctioned killings, it has executed three times as many people as its two closest competitors since 1976, and four times more than any other state.

 

Yet Texas has consistently had one of the highest murder rates in the country, demonstrating that the death penalty does not have a general deterrent effect. The three largest cities in Texas have murder rates among the top 25 in the country, while none of the largest cities in New York State are in the top 25.

Edited 20 September, 2009 by Verbal

[Micky]

Luckily I can differentiate between REASONABLE and NO doubt, and see both sides of the argument. Indeed doubt has been cast on the validity of evidence in a number of cases:

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

 

That said - it is a failing of the justice system, and it is they that should address such miscarriages. As for the cost aspect, unfortunately many are missing the point. Yes, it does cost millions to administer the death penalty, but the majority of those costs are attributable to the long drawn out legal process that most death row prisoners undergo.

 

As for being a deterrant - I think it may have a small impact, but is by no means effective in curtailing violent crime. However, I believe that those that perpetrate violence against others for no reason other than their own gratification or personal gain deserve the same medicine.

 

Therefore, where NO doubt exists as to thier involvement, and without any mitigating circumstances, I agree with the death penalty.

 

I agree that I am not on terra firma, but like others here, it sickens me that the likes of Ian Huntley and Fred West are given custodial sentences, whilst in effect the victims (parents, relations & friends) of those that were killed, actually serve much worse sentences.

[Arizona]

So here I am looking for some quiet refuge from the rabid insanity of the BNP-sponsored EDL thread, and what do I find? Perfect formation knee-jerking - complete with self-defeating logic.

 

What if those five innocent people a year were convicted of a capital offence?

 

And here's an awkward comparison. Not all states in the US have the death penalty. The most enthusiastic state killer in the US, by far, is Texas. Their murder rate is 5.5 per 100,000. New York state does not have the death penalty. Its murder rate is 5 per 100,000.

 

Texas not only leads the US in state-sanctioned killings, it has executed three times as many people as its two closest competitors since 1976, and four times more than any other state.

 

Yet Texas has consistently had one of the highest murder rates in the country, demonstrating that the death penalty does not have a general deterrent effect. The three largest cities in Texas have murder rates among the top 25 in the country, while none of the largest cities in New York State are in the top 25.

 

You do have a point. For 2007, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.5, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1. However I think that has more to do with the states which don't have the death penalty being generally more affluent. States like Vermont, Rhone Island, Hawaii and Maine. Texas and New York are different to the point that they might aswell be two completely different countries.

 

You can fiddle the stats to show anything. New Jersey has no death penalty and Newark has a murder rate of 37 per 100,000. If you don't believe it's a deterant then fine, but it's not my main reason for supporting the death penalty in certain cases.

[Verbal]

You do have a point. For 2007, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.5, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1. However I think that has more to do with the states which don't have the death penalty being generally more affluent. States like Vermont, Rhone Island, Hawaii and Maine. Texas and New York are different to the point that they might aswell be two completely different countries.

 

You can fiddle the stats to show anything. New Jersey has no death penalty and Newark has a murder rate of 37 per 100,000. If you don't believe it's a deterant then fine, but it's not my main reason for supporting the death penalty in certain cases.

 

But you can't bring socio-economic arguments into the deterrent question. Logically, either the death penalty is a deterrent or it is not. You can't plausibly argue that a poor Texan, for example, is so mentally enfeebled by his poverty as to not understand - or understand less well - the idea that if he kills someone, he'll face the chop. In fact, if this were true, even in Texas you are actually not allowed to execute people, because by definition, they wouldn't be mentally competent (and this is a national decision, imposed as the result of a US Supreme court ruling.)

 

It's not that I don't believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. It just isn't. This is not 'fiddling the statistics'. They are incontrovertible. (and we're not even getting into the question of why the US has by far the highest murder rate in the western world, despite the death penalty.)

 

In the US, very few people bother with this argument any more because they know the argument is lost. What they focus on is the old frontier idea of justice being an eye for an eye. Which partly explains why more blacks end up on death row than whites.

Edited 20 September, 2009 by Verbal

[Arizona]

But you can't bring socio-economic arguments into the deterrent question. Logically, either the death penalty is a deterrent or it is not. You can't plausibly argue that a poor Texan, for example, is so mentally enfeebled by his poverty as to not understand - or understand less well - the idea that if he kills someone, he'll face the chop. In fact, if this were true, even in Texas you are actually not allowed to execute people, because by definition, they wouldn't be mentally competent (and this is a national decision, imposed as the result of a US Supreme court ruling.)

 

It's not that I don't believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. It just isn't. This is not 'fiddling the statistics'. They are incontrovertible. (and we're not even getting into the question of why the US has by far the highest murder rate in the western world, despite the death penalty.)

 

In the US, very few people bother with this argument any more because they know the argument is lost. What they focus on is the old frontier idea of justice being an eye for an eye. Which partly explains why more blacks end up on death row than whites.

 

It's not a case of being mentally enfeebled, it's more of a cultural difference. You just don't get anywhere near the levels of gang warefare in places like Vermont and Rhode Island that you would in the poorer parts of Detroit, Dallas, Phoenix, Vegas, Chicago, Washington DC, NYC or Baltimore.

 

You can't really draw comparisons between Vermont with 2.6 murders per 100,000 and Detroit with 45. It's like saying a higher proportion of people are killed fighting in Afghanistan than were killed at the West Ham - Millwall game a few weeks ago. Kevlar jackets and helmets do not make you safer, so our soldiers would be better off wearing hoodies and tracksuits.

 

I think the death penalty would provide a deterant to a small but significant number of people who could potentially commit murder. If it dropped the UK murder rate by 1 in 100,000 people, then 600 fewer families a year wouldn't get torn appart. Try telling them their loss is insignificant.

[Verbal]

It's not a case of being mentally enfeebled, it's more of a cultural difference. You just don't get anywhere near the levels of gang warefare in places like Vermont and Rhode Island that you would in the poorer parts of Detroit, Dallas, Phoenix, Vegas, Chicago, Washington DC, NYC or Baltimore.

 

You can't really draw comparisons between Vermont with 2.6 murders per 100,000 and Detroit with 45. It's like saying a higher proportion of people are killed fighting in Afghanistan than were killed at the West Ham - Millwall game a few weeks ago. Kevlar jackets and helmets do not make you safer, so our soldiers would be better off wearing hoodies and tracksuits.

 

I think the death penalty would provide a deterant to a small but significant number of people who could potentially commit murder. If it dropped the UK murder rate by 1 in 100,000 people, then 600 fewer families a year wouldn't get torn appart. Try telling them their loss is insignificant.

 

Well there's a really simple test you can do to see if you're right. Instead of taking the case of New York State, take states which DO have the death penalty, but are not only much poorer than Texas, but have similar 'cultures'.

 

You can look at Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico (the poorest of all) and many others in the southern belt. They ALL have lower execution rates than the fry-one-a-minute Texas. And lower murder rates.

 

These facts have nothing whatever to do with the feelings of the families of murder victims.

Edited 20 September, 2009 by Verbal

[benjii]

You "no doubters" as I shall call you really don't understand the practical difficulties of your position.

 

I'll ask again: what test determines "no doubt" (and don't answer by giving a ridiculous example where everyone in the world saw the crime being committed)? Give an answer which deals satisfactorily with cases on the boundary between "no doubt" (as the prosecution and victims family are arguing) and "some doubt" (which the defence is arguing).

 

Bear in mind that any murder conviction involves the jury having decided, beyond reasonable doubt, that the murderer killed someone, having intended to cause them death or serious harm. In 90% of cases there will be some shades of grey or doubt and in every one of those there will be a fierce debate between the crown and the defence. Bear in mind also that if the defence establishes "some doubt" then was the original conviction of "beyond reasonable doubt" sound? Isn't there a contradiction there?

 

There will hardly be any cases where the death penalty will end up being used in these circumstances and, even if one accepted for the sake of argument that the death penalty could in principle be a valid deterrant, the whole thing will be a massive waste of time with absolutely no benefit whatsover other than satisfying some primitve notion of "justice" or "retribution".

[Thedelldays]

benji

 

were you "unsure" when harold shipman was sent down...?

[Verbal]

benji

 

were you "unsure" when harold shipman was sent down...?

 

You're not following benjii's argument. He's saying there needs to be 'no doubt' in the event that a prisoner is executed. Shipman was not.

 

In any case, laws are not built around single cases, under the old legal adage that 'hard cases make bad laws.'

[Thedelldays]

You're not following benjii's argument. He's saying there needs to be 'no doubt' in the event that a prisoner is executed. Shipman was not.

 

In any case, laws are not built around single cases, under the old legal adage that 'hard cases make bad laws.'

 

indeed..but I think that was the general idea..where there was NO DOUBT...but people keep going on about, "what if"...

[aintforever]

You "no doubters" as I shall call you really don't understand the practical difficulties of your position.

 

I'll ask again: what test determines "no doubt" (and don't answer by giving a ridiculous example where everyone in the world saw the crime being committed)? Give an answer which deals satisfactorily with cases on the boundary between "no doubt" (as the prosecution and victims family are arguing) and "some doubt" (which the defence is arguing).

 

I think the Fred West case illustrates a case where there is no doubt (bodies under house, wife admitted, torture on tape, numerous previous witnesses of abuse etc).

 

When you compare that to the flimsy evidence that was used to convict the Jill Dando murderer - who was later released. You can see that there can be a million miles between two different murder convictions.

[bridge too far]

If we think killing and / or torture is so repugnant, why should we allow it to be practised legally in the form of capital punishment?

 

If it's wrong, ergo it's wrong.

 

We should be able to subscribe to a higher moral code than 'an eye for an eye' if we are as intelligent and advanced as we like to think we are.

[Arizona]

Well there's a really simple test you can do to see if you're right. Instead of taking the case of New York State, take states which DO have the death penalty, but are not only much poorer than Texas, but have similar 'cultures'.

 

You can look at Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico (the poorest of all) and many others in the southern belt. They ALL have lower execution rates than the fry-one-a-minute Texas. And lower murder rates.

 

These facts have nothing whatever to do with the feelings of the families of murder victims.

 

It's not just about wealth, it's more to do with gangs and crime culture. Are the young people shooting each other in the streets of Washington fighting over loathes of bread and warm clothing? No of course not.

 

The only way you could realistically test the deterant theory is to have two competely identical societies, one with the death penalty and one without. Or you could ask 1,000,000 murderers if the death penalty would have put them off. If one of them says yes, it is a deterant.

[Wade Garrett]

Was it David Bentley? Or was he the catalyst for the abolition of the Death Penalty as he was the last person to pay the ultimate price for a crime he didn't commit.

 

Don't we still technically have the death penalty for Treason or was that abolished as well in the past few years - i can vaguely remember something about it being discussed in the media a while back but not sure what happened.

 

I know Redknapp doesn't rate him, but that's a bit strong.

[Arizona]

If we think killing and / or torture is so repugnant, why should we allow it to be practised legally in the form of capital punishment?

 

If it's wrong, ergo it's wrong.

 

We should be able to subscribe to a higher moral code than 'an eye for an eye' if we are as intelligent and advanced as we like to think we are.

 

It's wrong to lock people up in big concrete buildings and not let them out too, that's kind of the point of a punishment. They don't like it.

 

Anyway, if you commit murder knowing there is a death penalty, it's your choice. You are quite litterally taking your life in your own hands. You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't kill someone, then say "it's wrong to kill, don't kill me"

[Verbal]

It's not just about wealth, it's more to do with gangs and crime culture. Are the young people shooting each other in the streets of Washington fighting over loathes of bread and warm clothing? No of course not.

 

The only way you could realistically test the deterant theory is to have two competely identical societies, one with the death penalty and one without. Or you could ask 1,000,000 murderers if the death penalty would have put them off. If one of them says yes, it is a deterant.

 

You're just setting up an impossible test in order to prove your point.

 

The simple fact is there is a vast pool of evidence from the 'natural experiments' I've mentioned, that demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

 

I assure you gang culture is NOT limited to DC, or South Central LA, or other northern conurbations. It is in fact brutally common in rural areas - if not more so. (I can give you not only chapter and verse on this, but some hideously gruesome photographic evidence of it from something I'm working on right now.)

 

Most murders, wherever they are committed in the US, are related in some way to drugs and gang/gun culture. The demographics on this are simply overwhelming.

[Verbal]

It's wrong to lock people up in big concrete buildings and not let them out too, that's kind of the point of a punishment. They don't like it.

 

Anyway, if you commit murder knowing there is a death penalty, it's your choice. You are quite litterally taking your life in your own hands. You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't kill someone, then say "it's wrong to kill, don't kill me"

 

You're trivialising BTF's point. The question of whether we do or do not have the death penalty is fundamentally a question about what kind of moral codes we live by as a country.

[benjii]

benji

 

were you "unsure" when harold shipman was sent down...?

 

Well, I had a sense of certainty from the media reports and the fact that there was no suggestion that the conviction was unsound. Obviously, it would be up to the judge and/or jury to make the call having sat thorugh the trial.

 

But let's say that it is one case where you could be pretty sure you're murdering the right person if you execute him. But how do you formalise it? That is my point. Yes there are some obvious cases. But we're talking about the law. You need a test. What is it and how do you escape from the fact that wherever you draw the line there will be cases on the edge of it.

[Thedelldays]

Well, I had a sense of certainty from the media reports and the fact that there was no suggestion that the conviction was unsound. Obviously, it would be up to the judge and/or jury to make the call having sat thorugh the trial.

 

But let's say that it is one case where you could be pretty sure you're murdering the right person if you execute him. But how do you formalise it? That is my point. Yes there are some obvious cases. But we're talking about the law. You need a test. What is it and how do you escape from the fact that wherever you draw the line there will be cases on the edge of it.

 

I think it is the "obvious" cases that we are on about..

 

Shipman

west

hindley

brady.....THAT is what people are on about..

[benjii]

I think the Fred West case illustrates a case where there is no doubt (bodies under house, wife admitted, torture on tape, numerous previous witnesses of abuse etc).

 

When you compare that to the flimsy evidence that was used to convict the Jill Dando murderer - who was later released. You can see that there can be a million miles between two different murder convictions.

 

Yes, EXACTLY. So how do you draw up the legal test to make sure that people like the Dando suspect are not murdered by the state? You either make the threshold so high that it is hardly ever used or you engender a situation where every conviction is followed by a further mini-trial dealing with the level of "doubt" and where some people will fall the wrong side of the line incorrectly. It comepletely flies in the face of the prevailing legal system of the country where no reasonable doubt is supposed to remain in any case.

[benjii]

I think it is the "obvious" cases that we are on about..

 

Shipman

west

hindley

brady.....THAT is what people are on about..

 

FFS.

[aintforever]

Yes, EXACTLY. So how do you draw up the legal test to make sure that people like the Dando suspect are not murdered by the state? You either make the threshold so high that it is hardly ever used or you engender a situation where every conviction is followed by a further mini-trial dealing with the level of "doubt" and where some people will fall the wrong side of the line incorrectly. It comepletely flies in the face of the prevailing legal system of the country where no reasonable doubt is supposed to remain in any case.

 

You make the threshold so high that it is hardly ever used.

[Thedelldays]

FFS.

YOU keep saying "what if"...but those who might be in favour of the death sentance are only saying for the most obvious severe cases like I mentioned....other than that, I agree, it cant be used..

keeping on saying "what if" is not countering any point as I (and im sure others) agree

[bridge too far]

YOU keep saying "what if"...but those who might be in favour of the death sentance are only saying for the most obvious severe cases like I mentioned....other than that, I agree, it cant be used..

keeping on saying "what if" is not countering any point as I (and im sure others) agree

 

But how can you (not you personally TDD - people in general) sit in their ivory towers saying murder is wrong.

 

And then condone someone being murdered.

 

Surely 'you' can see that's hypocritical at the very least?

[Arizona]

You're just setting up an impossible test in order to prove your point.

 

The simple fact is there is a vast pool of evidence from the 'natural experiments' I've mentioned, that demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty is not a deterrent.

 

I assure you gang culture is NOT limited to DC, or South Central LA, or other northern conurbations. It is in fact brutally common in rural areas - if not more so. (I can give you not only chapter and verse on this, but some hideously gruesome photographic evidence of it from something I'm working on right now.)

 

Most murders, wherever they are committed in the US, are related in some way to drugs and gang/gun culture. The demographics on this are simply overwhelming.

 

I do not doubt that gang warefare reflects a large proportion on murders in the US. But look at the states which do not have the death penalty. Vermont makes maple syrup, Maine catch lobsters, Haiwaiians surf, Alaskans **** moose. Yes I am being tongue in cheek, but my point is these places are just so far removed from the ghettos in DC and Detroit that you cannot draw comparisons in this instance.

 

I know my experiment, which is why we could probably argue until the cows come home and never agree. That would however be the only fair way of comparing the situations. To remove all other variables.

 

One final point from my. Can you honestly say 100% that the death penalty has never put ANYONE off commiting murder. If it has, just once, it is a deterant. If that one person who was saved from murder happened to be someone in your family, then you might feel differently.

 

You're trivialising BTF's point. The question of whether we do or do not have the death penalty is fundamentally a question about what kind of moral codes we live by as a country.

 

I'm not trivialising her point. This is just my POV. My POV is that murder is wrong and if it can be proved beyond all doubt then death should be the consequence. Murder is a choice. If you chose to murder, you must accept the consequences. You are, indirectly, chosing to die. Why is it morally wrong to kill someone who choses to die?