Grendel
Well-Known Member
My argument is on the 80 lifers - none of whom have to my knowledge denied guilt with the exception of Mr Huntley
And how much do you think it'd cost in payouts to the family if a wrongful conviction ws later found due to new evidence that didn't get heard because we followed through to the punishment hastily? Or how would the family of the victim feel knowing the wrong person had been killed for the crime?
If as you say he had a "mental age of a 13 year old" he would be sent to a maximum security hospital and probably institutionalised for the rest of his life at enormous cost to the taxpayer.
So he should've been executed anyway is what you're saying? Even though he wasn't actually the murderer?
Is that how we should decide now? Cost of execution (+ appeals and potential damages for wrongful conviction) vs cost of imprisonment/hospitalisation? if a is less than b, show 'em the rope? Even plenty of staunch Tories would baulk at that.
Why is it people keep going straight from capital punishment to the only other possibility being taking them to Disney Land or sitting down with them for afternoon tea? How are you supposed to have a rational conversation with people who juxtapose from the two positions so irrationally.
It also tends to be the same people that seem to believe if you have any criticism at all of capitalism then clearly you must be hardcore socialist or communist. Apparently there is no sliding scale - you're either a full blown leftie loony or you agree with them.
I think they need to realise there's this massive gap between the two to be explored.
I call for it in very specific cases. In general we can tell empirically that it’s not a deterrent and in some cases innocent people will be executed. In some cases e.g the Wests, Harold Shipman and those of similar ilk they have forfeited their right to life.
Couldn't we just leave a rope in their cell and leave it up to them? Keep them locked in a tiny cell with nothing but a toilet and the most basic provisions/food and just wait for them to lose the will to live?
Ive already bought a hospital
Was a bout to edit my post to include that. This should be denied. Also if they refuse food etc then no forcing or going to the courts. Just say 'fine' and leave them to it.What if they became ill and needed hospital treatment
Was a bout to edit my post to include that. This should be denied. Also if they refuse food etc then no forcing or going to the courts. Just say 'fine' and leave them to it.
For clarity, this is with absolutely unequivocable guilt of the worst cases of premeditated murder where the prisoner will likely never be released due to the danger to the public.
I think Pierrepoint’s view that once they have repaid their debt with their life that’s the end of it is the right one. It’s like these online paedo stings that appear everywhere on YouTube, don’t plaster it all over the internet for likes just go straight to the police with the evidence.
I read his autobiography years ago and I seem to remember one of his main points was he didn't think it acted as any kind of deterrent at all. If it did, there'd be no more.
At best it stopped some of the worst killers killing more people, but they would probably never have been let out anyway. Single crimes done in the spur of the moment he felt it was an excessive punishment and he executed plenty of people who were repentant.
I read his autobiography years ago and I seem to remember one of his main points was he didn't think it acted as any kind of deterrent at all. If it did, there'd be no more.
At best it stopped some of the worst killers killing more people, but they would probably never have been let out anyway. Single crimes done in the spur of the moment he felt it was an excessive punishment and he executed plenty of people who were repentant.
Couldn't we just leave a rope in their cell and leave it up to them? Keep them locked in a tiny cell with nothing but a toilet and the most basic provisions/food and just wait for them to lose the will to live?
This though is a breach of human rights. Many would find this more abhorrent than the death penalty. What if say Mr Belfield had Alzheimer’s in his dotage. He’d be unable to stay in prison so I guess a cosy Care home. Perhaps Mr Whiting will be there as well and they could jog each other’s memories about there useful contributions to society
Just a death penalty by a different method
Solves the thorny issue of who pulls the lever though.
Death penalty wankers remember the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6 would be dead if we still had the death penalty.
Also the Bridgewater 4 and all the mothers who that so called expert put in prison for killing their babies when their babies died of natural causes.
Thank about them and fuck the fuck off.
There’s been over 20 successful appeals against full life sentences since they arrived in 1983. To suggest that families wouldn’t appeal a death sentence after its been carried out is very naive if your yardstick for who qualifies for a death sentence is people currently on full life sentences.My argument is on the 80 lifers - none of whom have to my knowledge denied guilt with the exception of Mr Huntley
That's pretty much why the only arguments are about the cast iron guilty committing the more heinous murders.
Have they got Alzheimer’s or not?This though is a breach of human rights. Many would find this more abhorrent than the death penalty. What if say Mr Belfield had Alzheimer’s in his dotage. He’d be unable to stay in prison so I guess a cosy Care home. Perhaps Mr Whiting will be there as well and they could jog each other’s memories about there useful contributions to society
Have they got Alzheimer’s or not?
Why would they go to a retirement home anyway? Ian Brady never and he was seriously ill, he received his end of life care in a secure hospital. Ashworth IIRC.
All those people were considered cast iron guilty at the time though so no there is not morally non bankrupt argument for the death penalty.
I mean caught in the act irrefutable DNA evidence level guilty, not circumstantial stuff
DNA can be wrong and scientific evidence is open to massive confirmation bias.
There's a good documentary series on this on Netflix.
I mean caught in the act irrefutable DNA evidence level guilty, not circumstantial stuff
You're introducing a whole new level of perceived guilt into the proceedings.
Beyond reasonable doubt and irefutably beyond doubt.
Any decent defence lawyer would be all over it.
You either introduce the death penalty with the same burden of proof that currently exists or not at all.
It can't be wrong if the murderer has been caught in the act can it though?
I guess that's why I'm not a legal professional. You get what I'm trying to say.
Have you caught them in the fact or do you just think you have? Identification evidence is massively flawed and is one of the main reasons teh innocence project looks at proving innocence.
Also you have to take into account the good old fashion fit up.
You're introducing a whole new level of perceived guilt into the proceedings.
Beyond reasonable doubt and irefutably beyond doubt.
Any decent defence lawyer would be all over it.
You either introduce the death penalty with the same burden of proof that currently exists or not at all.
What are you actually hoping it will achieve?Why not just those for whole life tariffs?
Why not just those for whole life tariffs?
There’s also been 20+ successful appeals against whole life sentences. So what next? Include life sentences? Because everyone of those appeals the sentence was downgraded to life with a right to apply for parole. There‘a some real scum bags on the list too including “Mr Whiting” who somebody seems to think is still on a full life sentence. Some are even now free men under the terms of the GFA.That's a different argument to what Brighton was suggesting.
The burden of proof remains the same but the sentencing triggers the death penalty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?