Is it time for the death penalty?

[tiler65]

can we just remind folks to keep it civil please, we may disagree on somethings but need to remember not to bait other members

Is the master baiter back?

 

[allegoricus]

Here are nearly 30 for you, from a 10-year period....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7147662/Killers-freed-to-kill-again.html

Thanks. Says "one-in-three [of the thirty] carried out a second murder" on release from prison but, while it states that all thirty were "killers", it doesn't say whether they were all murderers.
Even so, I'm surprised at that level of "re-offending".

 

[ding76uk]

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

To those who say let prisoners live like pigs, who will police them? I know I would not want to be anywhere near it. Riots would be never ending and the torture committed on officers "caught" doesn't bare thinking about.

 

[bindex]

The poll is flawed and biased towards a 'yes' answer.

It needs another option - "No because too often in the past an executed person has been later found to be innocent" You can't apologise and make amends to a corpse.

I agree!

It's not that sometimes I don't think that someone deserves killing for the awful crimes that they've been convicted of, I wouldn't be human if I didn't. But we've got it wrong too many times in the past. I'd rather keep a thousand convicted murderers in prison than kill an innocent person. The cost is infinitesimal in comparison.

 

[DemiLion]

An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

To those who say let prisoners live like pigs, who will police them? I know I would not want to be anywhere near it. Riots would be never ending and the torture committed on officers "caught" doesn't bare thinking about.

Midnight Express comes to mind!

 

[SpikeK6]

I say no to the death penalty but there are ways of making peopel suffer.

prison is all about taking away their libertites and paying for their due, they do not need to live like pigs but surely can be put in prison and have nothing.
Why do they need tv's?? people did not have them 60 years ago so why does a prisoner need it?
Why should they have a games room full of things you and me cannot have in our home??
They can be treated as human beings but have no pleasure, take all that away and they will be punished. They can appeal BUT only if fresh evidence is brought forward, if none is they stay.
Would they want to return to prison if it was like that??? some would as these are what i would call no hopers, they will always live a life of crime no matter what you do to them or how bad the situation is in prison.

spike

spike

 

[allegoricus]

I say no to the death penalty but there are ways of making peopel suffer.

prison is all about taking away their libertites and paying for their due, they do not need to live like pigs but surely can be put in prison and have nothing.
Why do they need tv's?? people did not have them 60 years ago so why does a prisoner need it?
Why should they have a games room full of things you and me cannot have in our home??
They can be treated as human beings but have no pleasure, take all that away and they will be punished. They can appeal BUT only if fresh evidence is brought forward, if none is they stay.
Would they want to return to prison if it was like that??? some would as these are what i would call no hopers, they will always live a life of crime no matter what you do to them or how bad the situation is in prison.

spike

spike

Aye but the sentence is imprisonment, i.e. loss of liberty, which should be enough of a punishment.
Plus, it's easier - and therefore cheaper - to control people if they are maintained at some level of contentment.

 

[Sonriendo]

Is the master baiter back?

Don't think he ever left

 

[Gremlin]

But that is an assumption.

Many crimes, because of the judicial system, are given a lower rating ie manslaughter down from murder just so there can be a conviction.........both sides know the accused is guilty but because of some quirk of law they can argue for a lower charge.

Didn't there used to be a law that if you were found innocent of a murder charge you could not be tried for it again? (maybe wrong but it was something like that)

There did but iaw was changed in 2003

England and Wales

Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Pre-2003

The doctrines of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict persisted as part of the common law from the time of the Norman conquest of England; they were regarded as essential elements of protection of the liberty of the subject and respect for due process of law in that there should be finality of proceedings.[1] There were only three exceptions, all relatively recent, to the rules:
The prosecution has a right of appeal against acquittal in summary cases if the decision appears to be wrong in law or in excess of jurisdiction.[20]
A retrial is permissible if the interests of justice so require, following appeal against conviction by a defendant.[21]
A "tainted acquittal", where there has been an offence of interference with, or intimidation of, a juror or witness, can be challenged in the High Court.[22]

In Connelly v DPP ([1964] AC 1254), the Law Lords ruled that a defendant could not be tried for any offence arising out of substantially the same set of facts relied upon in a previous charge of which he had been acquitted, unless there are "special circumstances" proven by the prosecution. There is little case law on the meaning of "special circumstances", but it has been suggested that the emergence of new evidence would suffice.[23]

A defendant who had been convicted of an offence could be given a second trial for an aggravated form of that offence if the facts constituting the aggravation were discovered after the first conviction.[24] By contrast, a person who had been acquitted of a lesser offence could not be tried for an aggravated form even if new evidence became available.[25]

Post-2003

Following the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Macpherson Report recommended that the double jeopardy rule should be abrogated in murder cases, and that it should be possible to subject an acquitted murder suspect to a second trial if "fresh and viable" new evidence later came to light. The Law Commission later added its support to this in its report "Double Jeopardy and Prosecution Appeals" (2001). A parallel report into the criminal justice system by Lord Justice Auld, a past Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales, had also commenced in 1999 and was published as the Auld Report six months after the Law Commission report. It opined that the Law Commission had been unduly cautious by limiting the scope to murder and that "the exceptions should [...] extend to other grave offences punishable with life and/or long terms of imprisonment as Parliament might specify."[26]

These recommendations were implemented—not uncontroversially at the time—within the Criminal Justice Act 2003,[27][28] and this provision came into force in April 2005.[29] It opened certain serious crimes (including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and serious drug crimes) to a retrial, regardless of when committed, with two conditions: the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Court of Appeal must agree to quash the original acquittal due to "new and compelling evidence".[30] Pressure by Ann Ming, the mother of 1989 murder victim Julie Hogg—whose killer, William Dunlop, was initially acquitted in 1991 and subsequently confessed—also contributed to the demand for legal change.[31][32]

On 11 September 2006, Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder following a prior acquittal for the same crime, in his case his 1991 acquittal of Julie Hogg's murder. Some years later he had confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury, but was unable to be retried for the killing itself. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial, which was granted.[32][33][34] Dunlop pled guilty to murdering Julie Hogg and having sex with her dead body repeatedly, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years.[35]

On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be retried and found guilty of murder by a jury (Dunlop having confessed). In 1996 Weston had been acquitted of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995, but following the discovery of compelling new evidence in 2009—Thompson's blood on Weston's boots—he was arrested and tried for a second time. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, to serve a minimum of 13 years

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Glad to see common sense has prevailed in the results of the poll, even though the wording was slanted against the no's!

 

[ding76uk]

Glad to see common sense has prevailed in the results of the poll, even though the wording was slanted against the no's!

I don't see why agreeing with killing people is common sense

The only comparable Western country that has it in place has massive crime problems and it has not solved anything.

Plus the errors made an innocent people being killed.

Plus even if you don't care about them, it costs more!

It doesn't work. It is easy to say kill 'em all, it will solve all problems. If it really worked then do you not think politicians would be putting it back in place? It is flawed logic usually spouted by those who have not thought the full consequences through.

 

[odd jim]

Defining 'murder' can be tricky:

1/ Man shoots stranger in the street
2/ Man shoots stranger who is attacking someone in the street
3/ Man shoots stranger who he finds in his garden
4/ Wife shoots husband she finds abusing child

Which of those are murder? Which of those are not murder?

Or is the right answer in each instance "it depends"? And if a jury condemns a person who is hanged but subsequently found to be wholly innocent, will those responsible for the conviction and execution be guilty of murder?

Defining murder isn't tricky at all, it's written down in black and white in common law. As are the defences to murder.

 

[gramps]

Funny how some people find it necessary to attack those with different views as 'spouting flawed logic' - I guess putting the other person down makes them feel more important.

 

[realspeed]

The death penalty is the reserve of savages and savage nations. Eye for an eye justice has no place in these more enlightened and civilised times.

You do not set the right example by killing. You are only making more people into murderers. The only thing in would like to see is life in prison meaning life. Nothing more.

Strange logic if I may say so. Why should honest tax payers pay to keep a murderer in prison for the rest of their natural life? or even let out after serving several years to murder again?

I am old enough to remember when capital punishment was still written in law, Yes it didn't stop murders happening but there were a lot less of them.
Ok the arguement about jurors saying guilty and subsequently after execution discovering they are innocent? Yes mistakes can be made but jurors can only base their findings on what is presented to them in a court of law. If all the evidence or a witness is lying who is to blame, the witness? jurors? or just on the evidence?

Yes there will be those for and those against obviously I have made my views in a previous posting but can understand reasoning against it.

At this moment in time treatment isn't available to eliminate the urge to kill and until then the for and against will continue

Realspeed

 

[Garry Edwards]

Ok the arguement about jurors saying guilty and subsequently after execution discovering they are innocent? Yes mistakes can be made but jurors can only base their findings on what is presented to them in a court of law. If all the evidence or a witness is lying who is to blame, the witness? jurors? or just on the evidence?

In the past, people have been hanged based on nothing more than a confession - they may have had the confession beaten out of them, or they may have been suffering from a mental illness and believed what they said, or the police may just have lied about it.

Nobody today would be convicted on nothing more than a confession, but that still leaves false evidence by people who can normally be trusted, i.e. medical experts, forensic experts, police officers etc, and as has been proved many times, if one of these people does decide to lie then it's very difficult for a jury to accept the fact.

Then there is the possibility of either false or mistaken evidence by witnesses.
And the fact that whilst the rich can afford the best lawyers, most of the people who are likely to find themselves in a criminal court are poor, and only get the lawyers who are prepared to work for the amount paid by the legal aid system. Often these lawyers are content with a guilty plea, or with a half-hearted defence, which brings them in the same amount of money as a herculean effort. It's the poor who need the best lawyers, and they get the worst.

All of these failings in the system mean that it's very unsafe to execute anyone, and I'm guessing that this is one of the main reasons why civilised countries no longer execute people.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Funny how some people find it necessary to attack those with different views as 'spouting flawed logic' - I guess putting the other person down makes them feel more important.

Not at all. At this point in time no one has been able to support their opinion in favour of the death penalty with actual facts to prove that it would reduce crime rates. The only justification has been 'they deserve to die'. The only statistical evidence presented has come from the anti capital punishment side and it shows that it has no effect on crime rates.

 

[joescrivens]

Not at all. At this point in time no one has been able to support their opinion in favour of the death penalty with actual facts to prove that it would reduce crime rates. The only justification has been 'they deserve to die'. The only statistical evidence presented has come from the anti capital punishment side and it shows that it has no effect on crime rates.

the crime rates you speak of. Are they all crimes or just murders?

I can't see how enforcing the death penalty would reduce car crime for example

 

[barneyrubble]

the crime rates you speak of. Are they all crimes or just murders?

I can't see how enforcing the death penalty would reduce car crime for example

Maybe it ought to be allowed to electrocute car thieves then - wire up the car when locked to 50000 volts

 

[TriggerHappy]

the crime rates you speak of. Are they all crimes or just murders?

I can't see how enforcing the death penalty would reduce car crime for example

I was meaning murder...should have been more specific!

Can you show me any statistics evidence proving that capital punishment is an effective deterrent and reduces murder rates?

 

[viv1969]

I'd be happy to be the one pressing the button.....But that aside, I don't there's ever going be a return to the death penalty in the UK. So the "best" we can hope for is that a LIFE term of imprisonment becomes just that.....life.

In addition, Id like to see 23 hours a day locked in a 10ft by 6ft room....Bars on the front of each cell, not doors. Single prisoner occupancy and you WILL slop out your own toilet bucket. No TV, no cell phones or games consoles. No Open University degree courses etc. When you give up deciding to obey the law, then you give up your rights, so don't start squawking to the European Commission for this that and the other, thank you very much.

 

[joescrivens]

I was meaning murder...should have been more specific!

Can you show me any statistics evidence proving that capital punishment is an effective deterrent and reduces murder rates?

No I cannot. But I also don't feel that is why we should kill these murderer's and pedophiles.

I think they should be killed because they don't deserve to walk the same streets as me and that it should be done more efficiently than the current system so that it also reduces the cost of having to keep them alive behind bars for 25 years.

 

[norters]

Strange logic if I may say so. Why should honest tax payers pay to keep a murderer in prison for the rest of their natural life? or even let out after serving several years to murder again?

I am old enough to remember when capital punishment was still written in law, Yes it didn't stop murders happening but there were a lot less of them.
Ok the arguement about jurors saying guilty and subsequently after execution discovering they are innocent? Yes mistakes can be made but jurors can only base their findings on what is presented to them in a court of law. If all the evidence or a witness is lying who is to blame, the witness? jurors? or just on the evidence?

Yes there will be those for and those against obviously I have made my views in a previous posting but can understand reasoning against it.

At this moment in time treatment isn't available to eliminate the urge to kill and until then the for and against will continue

Realspeed

I don't get why it's strange logic tbh. In my opinion the state killing a man is murder and I think murder is wrong, as us eye for an eye justice. It's the reserve of savages.

Also, by killing a killer you are offering them an easy way out. I would much rather they spend the rest of their lives in prison. And for those saying prisoners have it easy, they most certainly do not.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I would much rather they spend the rest of their lives in prison. And for those saying prisoners have it easy, they most certainly do not.

How many murders actually serve a "whole-life" term though?

Not many.

 

[norters]

How many murders actually serve a "whole-life" term though?

Not many.

Well maybe that's the thing that should and could be changed rather than the reinstatement of savage justice?

 

[odd jim]

Certainly the death penalty is the only sure fire way of reducing repeat offending rates...

 

[Deleted member 49549]

I don't see why agreeing with killing people is common sense

The only comparable Western country that has it in place has massive crime problems and it has not solved anything.

Plus the errors made an innocent people being killed.

Plus even if you don't care about them, it costs more!

It doesn't work. It is easy to say kill 'em all, it will solve all problems. If it really worked then do you not think politicians would be putting it back in place? It is flawed logic usually spouted by those who have not thought the full consequences through.

Carl, perhaps i was unclear, but you've got my opinion the wrong way round - i am not a supporter of the death penalty.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I think the question really is ....Does violence beget violence, or not?

Like and for instance, what do we think bringing a child up by slapping them when they infuriate us by repeatedly ignoring our instruction teaches them? To slap someone else who infuriates them right?

Certainly the death penalty is the only sure fire way of reducing repeat offending rates...

No, not allowing them out again would also work.

 

[DemiLion]

No, not allowing them out again would also work.

Unfortunately not Adam. Murder inside prison is still a crime.

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

I think the question really is ....Does violence beget violence, or not?

Like and for instance, what do we think bringing a child up by slapping them when they infuriate us by repeatedly ignoring our instruction teaches them? To slap someone else who infuriates them right?

or maybe they learn that they crossed a line and won't do it again - maybe more children should have their legs or backside smacked at an early age to learn (metaphorically) there will always be an authority (the judicial system in this case) to catch you and punish you if you bend/break the rules enough.

similarly a telling off would equal a non-terminal prison sentence

 

[mike todd]

My view is that capital punishment is not appropriate in any circumstances whatsoever.

I don't know anyone who thinks it is and I'm surprised (and rather disappointed!) that this poll is so evenly split.

 

[joescrivens]

My view is that capital punishment is not appropriate in any circumstances whatsoever.

I don't know anyone who thinks it is and I'm surprised (and rather disappointed!) that this poll is so evenly split.

Why disappointed?

It's just differing opinions. Why is it disappointing that not everyone agrees with your opinion?

 

[big soft moose]

The sad thing is there is no such thing as a civilised society. I see that demonstrated here time and time again. I have read many posts in which not only do people cheer in the suffering of a person, they enjoy and take pleasure from it.
.

An enourmous irony in this being posted by someone who likes to regularly go to and document bullfights

and yes i know you said the suffering of a person , but I have difficulty in seeing why its alright to cheer the suffering of an inocent animal, but not okay to wish suffering (or even just death) on someone who murders policemen or rapes children.

Perhaps it would be more acceptable if cop killers and nonces were forced to die by gladatorial combat (theres an idea for the future use of the olympic stadium ) and the whole thing dressed up as a cultural spectacle

 

[Lynton]

My view is that capital punishment is not appropriate in any circumstances whatsoever.

I don't know anyone who thinks it is and I'm surprised (and rather disappointed!) that this poll is so evenly split.

Moors murderers?

Kray's?

I think where the evidence is conclusive then hang 'em.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Unfortunately not Adam. Murder inside prison is still a crime.

No surely not!

The point I was making badly, was we could also argue its the poor management of those caught, that's the cause of any secondary murders.

or maybe they learn that they crossed a line and won't do it again - maybe more children should have their legs or backside smacked at an early age to learn (metaphorically) there will always be an authority (the judicial system in this case) to catch you and punish you if you bend/break the rules enough.

similarly a telling off would equal a non-terminal prison sentence

The thing is we know that one is a sum of ones experiances. Its not a guessing game, we do know these things for sure....We must look at the whole effect of what capital punishment would mean as a statement of our intent, as we're effectively saying is ok to kill.

which it isn't is it.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I don't know anyone who thinks it is and I'm surprised (and rather disappointed!) that this poll is so evenly split.

Surprised here too, I think the good folk here are just sick of the hypocrisy and want some bloody answers!! which I so get ...Probably quite a few police and ex who are rightly upset at recent events have taken part, the trigger for this thread, type thing. dunno (excuse me Gramps) ... there are lots of reasons for the poll outcome, its not accurate or anything, nor even close to what the whole of the membership here actually think Id guess. :shrug:

 

[Ricardodaforce]

An enourmous irony in this being posted by someone who likes to regularly go to and document bullfights

and yes i know you said the suffering of a person , but I have difficulty in seeing why its alright to cheer the suffering of an inocent animal, but not okay to wish suffering (or even just death) on someone who murders policemen or rapes children.

Perhaps it would be more acceptable if cop killers and nonces were forced to die by gladatorial combat (theres an idea for the future use of the olympic stadium ) and the whole thing dressed up as a cultural spectacle

Hi there. In other threads you've showed yourself to be a caring and compassionate guy. Something which I admire and respect a lot. Which makes me wonder why you felt the need to have a dig at me, especially when admin has already made it clear that nothing personal should be brought to this thread. :shrug:

For the record I have never cheered the suffering of an animal. I have never expressed a desire in this forum to see animal blood being spilt. I have never expressed a desire in this forum to see an animal being killed. Others however, have expressed their glee at seeing people being maimed, or even worse be killed. It's not fair that you imprint unfair assertions on me. I go to bullfights to see the skill and artistry of a torero. I don't expect you to understand that, but that does not lesson any respect I have for you.

I appreciate that for most people the bullfight is something hard to swallow. But no one here other than me knows why I go or what I get from it. There's no need to taint this thread with lies claiming that I "cheer the suffering of an inocent animal". I don't. I hope you finally understand that.

I'm sorry to take the thread off topic, but I felt I had to reply to your post. All I ask is, next time you feel the need to have another pop, why not offer some constructive criticism on one of my photos instead.

Regards

 

[Laudrup]

An enourmous irony in this being posted by someone who likes to regularly go to and document bullfights

and yes i know you said the suffering of a person , but I have difficulty in seeing why its alright to cheer the suffering of an inocent animal, but not okay to wish suffering (or even just death) on someone who murders policemen or rapes children.

Perhaps it would be more acceptable if cop killers and nonces were forced to die by gladatorial combat (theres an idea for the future use of the olympic stadium ) and the whole thing dressed up as a cultural spectacle

The bull is an animal bred for a ritual and then eaten, a pretty big and important difference from a human being sentenced to death.

 

[gramps]

Surprised here too, I think the good folk here are just sick of the hypocrisy and want some bloody answers!! which I so get ...Probably quite a few police and ex who are rightly upset at recent events have taken part, the trigger for this thread, type thing. dunno (excuse me Gramps) ... there are lots of reasons for the poll outcome, its not accurate or anything, nor even close to what the whole of the membership here actually think Id guess. :shrug:

Actually many people do firmly believe that the death penalty should be returned, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the poll (and I accept that the questions aren't perfect but I can't edit the poll and it's easy to be wise after the event) reflects the split that would be found in society in general.

 

[Cobra]

OK guys calm down, we all know this is a very emotive subject.
But some of the comments are now starting to get personal.

Either stay on track or stay out of the thread.
Anymore insults, (back handed or otherwise)
and despite the crap weather, there may be the opportunity for
some of you to do a little gardening

 

[Splog]

The bull is an animal bred for a ritual and then eaten, a pretty big and important difference from a human being sentenced to death.

Really! Does a human being have more right to life than a bull? If so, why? :shrug: