Is it time for the death penalty?

[viv1969]

If you are going to stick to the letter of that, that in it self is very cruel.
Plus that type of isolation may well lead to insanity.
I'd rather be dead than suffer "however many years" of that.

Then upon conviction, those should be the choices:
Life in solitary where "this" might happen....or you swing...your decision.

 

[boyfalldown]

An interesting point about theis debate is that the main argument from those opposed is not -"i'm morally opposed to executing ahuman in any circumstances' but "what if you've got the wrong man ?"

Which begs the hypothetical question of how many would still be opposed to CP in a case where they knew the right man had been arrested and tried ?

I'm still very opposed to it on moral grounds as well. There is a lot of moral stuff in my arguments as well (I hope), but its a little easier to put together a coherent argument based on fact and figures rather then moralities

 

[tiler65]

I'm still very opposed to it on moral grounds as well. There is a lot of moral stuff in my arguments as well (I hope), but its a little easier to put together a coherent argument based on fact and figures rather then moralities

Facts and figures mainly from the US Hugh. I hate the comparison with the US.....we are different cultures no matter what you think.

Have murders increased since the death penalty was abolished in the UK? (you can use per capita averages too if you like)

Here is a small site and even that is inconclusive because of our inability to have a correct survey on crime stats.

http://www.murderuk.com/misc_crime_stats.html

 

[boyfalldown]

Facts and figures mainly from the US Hugh. I hate the comparison with the US.....we are different cultures no matter what you think.

Have murders increased since the death penalty was abolished in the UK? (you can use per capita averages too if you like)

Here is a small site and even that is inconclusive because of our inability to have a correct survey on crime stats.

http://www.murderuk.com/misc_crime_stats.html

The trouble is though its probably the best we have to compare as its pretty much the only Western democracy that still enacts the death penalty to compare to.

For the wrongful convictions thing, we could easily look at say those people convicted on the basis of Prof. Roy Meadows discredited expert testimony, or Stanley Kiszko (only examples). It wouldn't be hard to speculate were it available CP would have been sought in many if not all of those cases, but it would just be speculation. All involved murders of children and in Kiszko's case in involved a pretty horrific rape too.

The murder rate in the UK has generally fallen over the last 10 years, but I can't find any stats since CP was abolished though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

 

[tiler65]

The murder rate in the UK has generally fallen over the last 10 years, but I can't find any stats since CP was abolished though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

have you not read the link I posted ????????

 

[boyfalldown]

have you not read the link I posted ????????

the trouble is, by their own admission its not a reliable source, and without the per capital figure it doesn't mean anything

 

[Cobra]

and would that in itself not be a good deterrent :shrug:

I'm sure it would, but my point was the perceived cruelty in evoking the death penalty.
Surely that amounts to torture? and could well turn into a fate worse than death?

 

[CT]

The murder rate in the UK has generally fallen over the last 10 years, but I can't find any stats since CP was abolished though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

I would seriously doubt that as would most of us. Just locally in my surrounding area, street shootings and stabbings seem to be a pretty commonplace occurrence these days. Any figures are likely to be wholly misleading anyway - many offences initially charged as murder get plea bargained down to manslaughter (which is a whole other issue).

Does it matter whether CP is a deterrent or not anyway? Our prison system is a massive failure and certainly little or no deterrent at all for the vast majority of offenders. If it's no deterrent then we may as well follow your argument to it's logical conclusion and stop imprisoning people too. Prison is only effective in that they can't commit further offences for the period during which they're banged up and those periods are now tending to be vastly reduced to what they used to be, largely because the whole system is creaking at the seams and we simply don't have the places to house offenders.

Thanks to what is laughingly called 'streamlining' of the judicial process, many offences which could once only be tried at Crown Court are now dealt with by magistrates courts where powers of punishment are limited to to 6 months per charge to a maximum of two charges. You don't have to look far to see where we're going wrong - as a nation we lack the moral fibre to actually address the growing problem.

There are all sorts of murders and I don't believe they should all carry the DP, but for deliberate, premeditated murder, which is the most serious crime in the criminal calendar, then the DP is both appropriate and just. -b****r whether it deters anyone else or not!

If there were a referendum on the subject then we'd see what the views of the vast majority of people were, but no government will do that because they know what the outcome would be.

 

[boyfalldown]

I would seriously doubt that as would most of us. Just locally in my surrounding area, street shootings and stabbings seem to be a pretty commonplace occurrence these days. Any figures are likely to be wholly misleading anyway - many offences initially charged as murder get plea bargained down to manslaughter (which is a whole other issue).

largely I agree they're likely to be misleading. If only because the response from paramedics, medical teams and the police is far better and that stabbing outside your house is more likely to survive through those factors alone.

The trouble is 'seem to be', is pretty anecdotal, does it just seem that way, cause of better reporting, police sirens being louder(OK I know) etc etc........

The point I'm making is that while those figures are open to question then relying on anecdotal evidence is at best unsafe.

Does it matter whether CP is a deterrent or not anyway? Our prison system is a massive failure and certainly little or no deterrent at all for the vast majority of offenders. If it's no deterrent then we may as well follow your argument to it's logical conclusion and stop imprisoning people too. Prison is only effective in that they can't commit further offences for the period during which they're banged up and those periods are now tending to be vastly reduced to what they used to be, largely because the whole system is creaking at the seams and we simply don't have the places to house offenders.

yes it does matter if its a deterrent. If its no deterrent then it does nothing to stop the initial capital crime in the first place. I don't agree we should stop locking people up, but you and I both know that is just taking an argument to the extreme, same as your argument could be taken to the extreme and hang the entire prison population, at least they'd be space then

Anyway, thats getting silly. I do believe that life should mean life, taking away the threat to society as a role, regardless of remorse or not. I'd agree the system as a whole needs a good degree of investment and sorting out in general.

Thanks to what is laughingly called 'streamlining' of the judicial process, many offences which could once only be tried at Crown Court are now dealt with by magistrates courts where powers of punishment are limited to to 6 months per charge to a maximum of two charges. You don't have to look far to see where we're going wrong - as a nation we lack the moral fibre to actually address the growing problem.

Failing to address problems and fudging things seems to be a very British trait. To much further down that line and a fear we'll head into politics.

If there were a referendum on the subject then we'd see what the views of the vast majority of people were, but no government will do that because they know what the outcome would be.

That referendum would turn into (by proxy) a referendum on many issues, including our EU membership. I suspect that's why its not held as much as anything else

 

[joescrivens]

It's the best we have

But joe is ( unusually for him ) right. I'm going to finish here before a good discussion gets unpleasant

and yet ....... 4 posts later

 

[boyfalldown]

and yet ....... 4 posts later

I'm sorry I a bit poor at leaving things sometime s

 

[CT]

I'm sorry I a bit poor at leaving things sometime s

LOL You're forgiven.

This whole business of whether the DP is a deterrent or not is a complete red herring which clouds the issue every time the subject comes up.It's not that long ago that we executed people by hanging drawing and quartering, being broken on the wheel, burning, and other barbaric means of execution. It did nothing to stop crime in those days, and those with a propensity to commit murder will do so regardless of what forms of punishment are in place. They don't envisage getting caught anyway.

I'd be interested to hear from those who think that the taking of any human life is wrong as to whether or not that belief would extend to being a conscientious objector in time of war?

 

[POAH]

What we need is to just dump prisoners on a large Island somewhere and let them fend for themselves

 

[joescrivens]

What we need is to just dump prisoners on a large Island somewhere and let them fend for themselves

now that would make a great tv show

 

[CT]

What we need is to just dump prisoners on a large Island somewhere and let them fend for themselves

We tried that - it was called Australia.

Anyway, it's been interesting, but with a respectful nod in the direction of The State Of Texas I think i'll go and dust one of the cameras off.

 

[magicaxeman]

It's hard to see it as anything else when the prisoner thinks they'll be able to finish their lunch afterwards. It's fair to say they don't understand their punishment, and is nothing but vengeful.

Don't parole, take a US approach of sentencing for 200-300 years so parole after a third is irrelevant or sentence for whole of life tarrifs.

A whole life tariff is against the little darling human rights though these days.

It is an extreme case, but if you look at the US the majority executed have lower the normal IQs and can't afford proper defences. Those cases where the death penalty is sought where the defendant is of an average or above IQ and can afford a reasonable defence have a much lower chance of a capital sentence. That's not enlightened.

An approach that involves us repealing 45 years of legislation is not 'enlightened' either.

I would say there is nothing enlightening about the last 45 years of legislation
All its led to is the situation where the criminals human rights outweigh the victims human rights and the only death penalty legislation has come from directives from Brussels, not the UK courts.

ignoring all the moral arguments, thankfully it won't. If nothing else its illegal under various EU treaties.

Your presuming we will stay in, again the majority of the population want a referendum to get us out, I would say its more likely for us to withdraw our membership than it is to stay in the long term.


Comparing USA to UK

You cannot compare the British and USA criminal justice systems, they are vastly different especially so when it comes to the quality of defence available to the defendant.
In the USA its very much a case of you get what you pay for, and if you cant pay then you generally can expect a poor defence whereas here though buying a top barrister can help you can still expect a high quality of defence even when limited to legal aid.

Also you cannot compare the crime figures without using per capita figures, even then you have to accept that there is a significant culture difference between the two countries and even from state to state over there.

We also have to take into account that the figures here are massaged.

If you want to make any comparison then compare with when we did have the death penalty as well as a robust and hard prison system.

Re Noye - we all know it was murder, stabbing once or twice can be seen as self defence but to physically still offer resistance after being stabbed in the torso 11 times is ridiculous unless on PCP's or similar.


Collateral damage

Collateral damage I see as a negligible issue due to several factors.

Firstly is that British Jurors have always been by and large more reticent to convict in capital cases, especially where there is poor or ambiguous evidence presented.
Even in the Bentley case though the jury had been directed by the judge that under British criminal law Bentley was equally guilty and had to find him guilty, there was still a strong recommendation for mercy.
It was the judge and the home secretary at the time who where complacent in ignoring the jury's recommendation.

I firmly believe that even if the death sentence was available that jury's would be reticent to convict and would adhere to the law in that the evidence must show guilt was proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

The quality of DNA evidence has improved markedly from its early days, collection and storage methods have been improved to drastically reduce any chance of contamination.
Again I think a Jury here would be reticent to convict in a capital case solely based on DNA evidence, I think they would require more evidence than that to take a persons life.

With big brother constantly watching us via CCTV (we are after all the nation with the most CCTV coverage) plus the public's ownership and use of personal video there is more and more of this "caught on camera" evidence being used in courts, such eyewitness evidence would be hard to refute in a murder case.

But above all its the British system of fair play and our natural stance to defend the underdog that would help ensure, along with the above measures, that justice was served, but not at the expense of the loss of innocent lives.


Finally one subject that hasn't been broached with regard to the death penalty is the neutering of the treason act.

This was one of the last offences for which the death penalty still stood long after the abolition of it for murder (effectively ended by a Brussels directive)

Given the rise in terrorism both domestic and foreign I have long felt that the treason act should be used against such people as those committing or planning these attacks as their aim is to overthrow our government and instate their own as well as overthrow our head of state (the queen).

I don't give a fig about the stance that it would be creating martyr's, such people are at the top of my list to drop and yes if able I would be more than happy to do the job myself.

 

[Garry Edwards]

In the USA its very much a case of you get what you pay for, and if you cant pay then you generally can expect a poor defence whereas here though buying a top barrister can help you can still expect a high quality of defence even when limited to legal aid.

Nonsense

Firstly is that British Jurors have always been by and large more reticent to convict in capital cases, especially where there is poor or ambiguous evidence presented.

If the evidence is poor or ambiguous there should be an aquittal, regardless of the sentence that will be passed on conviction

Even in the Bentley case though the jury had been directed by the judge that under British criminal law Bentley was equally guilty and had to find him guilty,

Goddard may have been a bad judge, but he was right in this instance - both people were engaged in joint enterprise, therefore they shared equal guilt in law. The real question was, did Bentley really shout out 'Let him have it Chris' or was that manufactured evidence that had been proved to work in the Appleby case just a couple of years earlier?

The quality of DNA evidence has improved markedly from its early days, collection and storage methods have been improved to drastically reduce any chance of contamination.

You mean as in the Barry George case, where his conviction was based on police evidence that none of their firearms officers had entered his flat and therefore couldn't have contaminated the evidence - even though several of them had been photographed leaving the flat?

Again I think a Jury here would be reticent to convict in a capital case solely based on DNA evidence, I think they would require more evidence than that to take a persons life.

If what you're saying is actually correct, wouldn't this mean that more guilty people would be likely to go free?

But above all its the British system of fair play and our natural stance to defend the underdog that would help ensure, along with the above measures, that justice was served, but not at the expense of the loss of innocent lives.

There's a history of innocent lives being lost (or rather taken). Nothing would change.

Given the rise in terrorism both domestic and foreign I have long felt that the treason act should be used against such people as those committing or planning these attacks as their aim is to overthrow our government and instate their own as well as overthrow our head of state (the queen).

The only people who can commit treason is those people who are of the same nationality, i.e. in the case of terrorism on British territory they would have to be British subjects. And anyway, the SAS usually get involved and have their own methods, and our armed police have been known to shoot first and ask questions later too - am I to assume that you approve of these methods?

 

[TriggerHappy]

Nonsense
If the evidence is poor or ambiguous there should be an aquittal, regardless of the sentence that will be passed on conviction
Goddard may have been a bad judge, but he was right in this instance - both people were engaged in joint enterprise, therefore they shared equal guilt in law. The real question was, did Bentley really shout out 'Let him have it Chris' or was that manufactured evidence that had been proved to work in the Appleby case just a couple of years earlier?
You mean as in the Barry George case, where his conviction was based on police evidence that none of their firearms officers had entered his flat and therefore couldn't have contaminated the evidence - even though several of them had been photographed leaving the flat?
If what you're saying is actually correct, wouldn't this mean that more guilty people would be likely to go free?
There's a history of innocent lives being lost (or rather taken). Nothing would change.
The only people who can commit treason is those people who are of the same nationality, i.e. in the case of terrorism on British territory they would have to be British subjects. And anyway, the SAS usually get involved and have their own methods, and our armed police have been known to shoot first and ask questions later too - am I to assume that you approve of these methods?

Fantastic post

 

[boyfalldown]

A whole life tariff is against the little darling human rights though these days.

there are a number of prisoners currently serving whole life tariffs in the UK :shrug:

I would say there is nothing enlightening about the last 45 years of legislation
All its led to is the situation where the criminals human rights outweigh the victims human rights and the only death penalty legislation has come from directives from Brussels, not the UK courts.

in 1945 Silverman started his campaign to abolish the death penalty. He effectively managed it in 1965 with the murder act before abolition in 1969. Thats well before we joined the EEC (as it was then). Infact it was a time when the EEC particularly De Gaul was very against our joining. Interestingly the last capital sentence was carried out in France in 1977. As they'd been in the EEC some time by then its fair to say it wasn't a condition of membership then.

Abolishment in the UK certainly wasn't dictated by Brussels.

Your presuming we will stay in, again the majority of the population want a referendum to get us out, I would say its more likely for us to withdraw our membership than it is to stay in the long term.

I made no such assumption. Anywhere, but maybe you can point out where I did. I pointed out that such a referendum would be a vote on the EU now. You're the only one making assumptions as to the results.

Comparing USA to UK

You cannot compare the British and USA criminal justice systems, they are vastly different especially so when it comes to the quality of defence available to the defendant.
In the USA its very much a case of you get what you pay for, and if you cant pay then you generally can expect a poor defence whereas here though buying a top barrister can help you can still expect a high quality of defence even when limited to legal aid.

maybe you could suggest a modern western democracy to compare to?. I know and have said the US isn't a perfect comparision by any means.

Also you cannot compare the crime figures without using per capita figures, even then you have to accept that there is a significant culture difference between the two countries and even from state to state over there.

We also have to take into account that the figures here are massaged.

:shrug:. I did, throughout. Maybe you'd provide evidence of massaging.

If you want to make any comparison then compare with when we did have the death penalty as well as a robust and hard prison system.

Re Noye - we all know it was murder, stabbing once or twice can be seen as self defence but to physically still offer resistance after being stabbed in the torso 11 times is ridiculous unless on PCP's or similar.

OK, I will compare.

Mattan
Bentley
Evans
Rowland. I would aks them, but I can't. Its a little hard to believe you are seriously suggesting comparing the courts 60 years ago with now. And saying the US society is different. How much has UK society changed over that time.

Collateral damage

Collateral damage I see as a negligible issue due to several factors.

Firstly is that British Jurors have always been by and large more reticent to convict in capital cases, especially where there is poor or ambiguous evidence presented.
Even in the Bentley case though the jury had been directed by the judge that under British criminal law Bentley was equally guilty and had to find him guilty, there was still a strong recommendation for mercy.
It was the judge and the home secretary at the time who where complacent in ignoring the jury's recommendation.

I firmly believe that even if the death sentence was available that jury's would be reticent to convict and would adhere to the law in that the evidence must show guilt was proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Beyond all reasonable doubt is that standard in all criminal convictions. You're comparing juries from 50 years ago to now. How can you know what differences 50 odd years of cultures changes have made?

The quality of DNA evidence has improved markedly from its early days, collection and storage methods have been improved to drastically reduce any chance of contamination.
Again I think a Jury here would be reticent to convict in a capital case solely based on DNA evidence, I think they would require more evidence than that to take a persons life.

And in 30-40 years what new means of testing evidence will we of found?. 60 years ago Mattan was convicted purely on one (bribed) eyewitness. 10 years ago you could convict just on expert witness testimony. Whats the next 10 years going to have shown us?

With big brother constantly watching us via CCTV (we are after all the nation with the most CCTV coverage) plus the public's ownership and use of personal video there is more and more of this "caught on camera" evidence being used in courts, such eyewitness evidence would be hard to refute in a murder case.

But above all its the British system of fair play and our natural stance to defend the underdog that would help ensure, along with the above measures, that justice was served, but not at the expense of the loss of innocent lives.

You're just speculating now. Not every street or alleyway by any means is covered by CCTV, nor are most houses.

Finally one subject that hasn't been broached with regard to the death penalty is the neutering of the treason act.

This was one of the last offences for which the death penalty still stood long after the abolition of it for murder (effectively ended by a Brussels directive)

Given the rise in terrorism both domestic and foreign I have long felt that the treason act should be used against such people as those committing or planning these attacks as their aim is to overthrow our government and instate their own as well as overthrow our head of state (the queen).

You're getting to political for me.

I don't give a fig about the stance that it would be creating martyr's, such people are at the top of my list to drop and yes if able I would be more than happy to do the job myself.

no comment.

I think a whole life tariff is far worse then a death sentence.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

A whole life tariff is against the little darling human rights though these days.

I would say there is nothing enlightening about the last 45 years of legislation
All its led to is the situation where the criminals human rights outweigh the victims human rights and the only death penalty legislation has come from directives from Brussels, not the UK courts.

Your presuming we will stay in, again the majority of the population want a referendum to get us out, I would say its more likely for us to withdraw our membership than it is to stay in the long term.


Comparing USA to UK

You cannot compare the British and USA criminal justice systems, they are vastly different especially so when it comes to the quality of defence available to the defendant.
In the USA its very much a case of you get what you pay for, and if you cant pay then you generally can expect a poor defence whereas here though buying a top barrister can help you can still expect a high quality of defence even when limited to legal aid.

Also you cannot compare the crime figures without using per capita figures, even then you have to accept that there is a significant culture difference between the two countries and even from state to state over there.

We also have to take into account that the figures here are massaged.

If you want to make any comparison then compare with when we did have the death penalty as well as a robust and hard prison system.

Re Noye - we all know it was murder, stabbing once or twice can be seen as self defence but to physically still offer resistance after being stabbed in the torso 11 times is ridiculous unless on PCP's or similar.

If it was murder why was the verdict passed down, self defence?

Firstly is that British Jurors have always been by and large more reticent to convict in capital cases, especially where there is poor or ambiguous evidence presented.
Even in the Bentley case though the jury had been directed by the judge that under British criminal law Bentley was equally guilty and had to find him guilty, there was still a strong recommendation for mercy.
It was the judge and the home secretary at the time who where complacent in ignoring the jury's recommendation.

There is no such thing as "British" criminal law, Scots (Roman) Law differs on several major points from that practiced in England and Wales (Norman law), notably with regard to the available verdicts (guilty, not guilty and not proven) and the number of jurors in a jury.

 

[Garry Edwards]

If it was murder why was the verdict passed down, self defence?

Pure speculation of course, but there may be (other) cynical people out there who believe that someone who was heavily involved in a £26,000,000 robbery that is probably worth £100,000,000 in today's money could buy his own form of justice.

Hence the point that I and others have made throughout, 'justice' can be bought and paid for by the rich and often isn't available to the poor.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Pure speculation of course, but there may be (other) cynical people out there who believe that someone who was heavily involved in a £26,000,000 robbery that is probably worth £100,000,000 in today's money could buy his own form of justice.

Hence the point that I and others have made throughout, 'justice' can be bought and paid for by the rich and often isn't available to the poor.

From what I've read of the case, and the subsequent Stephen Cameron "road rage" killing, the last thing Noye was able to do was buy, or use his Masonic connections to, influence the verdicts....

 

[magicaxeman]

Nonsense
If the evidence is poor or ambiguous there should be an aquittal, regardless of the sentence that will be passed on conviction
Goddard may have been a bad judge, but he was right in this instance - both people were engaged in joint enterprise, therefore they shared equal guilt in law. The real question was, did Bentley really shout out 'Let him have it Chris' or was that manufactured evidence that had been proved to work in the Appleby case just a couple of years earlier?
You mean as in the Barry George case, where his conviction was based on police evidence that none of their firearms officers had entered his flat and therefore couldn't have contaminated the evidence - even though several of them had been photographed leaving the flat?
If what you're saying is actually correct, wouldn't this mean that more guilty people would be likely to go free?
There's a history of innocent lives being lost (or rather taken). Nothing would change.
The only people who can commit treason is those people who are of the same nationality, i.e. in the case of terrorism on British territory they would have to be British subjects. And anyway, the SAS usually get involved and have their own methods, and our armed police have been known to shoot first and ask questions later too - am I to assume that you approve of these methods?

Re Bentley - I think most accept he did say the words, but its always been more about the context in which they where said rather than the actual words themselves.

Barry george - Things have moved along a fair way in the collection and retention of DNA evidence since then, that was part of my point.

No the guilty wouldn't go free, there is usually the option to find the person guilty of a lesser offence such as manslaughter.

There is a history of 3 innocent lives being taken, 3 to many admittedly, but only 3 out of hundreds of death sentences and as admitted technically as Goddard was correct, one of them shouldn't count.

Agreed on the treason, even though there is a history of non British nationals being tried and sentenced for treason, but then we have plenty of home grown British nationals planning and attempting such things.

SAS? No problem, their job is not to take prisoners but to neutralise a threat that has escalated to the point where they need to be involved, I have no issue at all with them shooting those they face on such operations.

Hmm, now we are at the tube incident, in the situation they faced and with the intel they where being fed, yes they did the right thing, as far as those on the ground where concerned he was a bomber about to set off a device.
Off course we can say in hindsight they should not have shot him, but had they not and had he been a bomber everyone would have been complaining at the police for not stopping him.
In the end the result was that intel communicated to the officers pursuing him was incorrect, a case of mistaken identity, I don't blame the officers that pulled the triggers but I do blame those who mistakenly identified him.

there are a number of prisoners currently serving whole life tariffs in the UK :shrug:




in 1945 Silverman started his campaign to abolish the death penalty. He effectively managed it in 1965 with the murder act before abolition in 1969. Thats well before we joined the EEC (as it was then). Infact it was a time when the EEC particularly De Gaul was very against our joining. Interestingly the last capital sentence was carried out in France in 1977. As they'd been in the EEC some time by then its fair to say it wasn't a condition of membership then.

Abolishment in the UK certainly wasn't dictated by Brussels.





I made no such assumption. Anywhere, but maybe you can point out where I did. I pointed out that such a referendum would be a vote on the EU now. You're the only one making assumptions as to the results.



maybe you could suggest a modern western democracy to compare to?. I know and have said the US isn't a perfect comparision by any means.



:shrug:. I did, throughout. Maybe you'd provide evidence of massaging.



OK, I will compare.

Mattan
Bentley
Evans
Rowland. I would aks them, but I can't. Its a little hard to believe you are seriously suggesting comparing the courts 60 years ago with now. And saying the US society is different. How much has UK society changed over that time.



Beyond all reasonable doubt is that standard in all criminal convictions. You're comparing juries from 50 years ago to now. How can you know what differences 50 odd years of cultures changes have made?




And in 30-40 years what new means of testing evidence will we of found?. 60 years ago Mattan was convicted purely on one (bribed) eyewitness. 10 years ago you could convict just on expert witness testimony. Whats the next 10 years going to have shown us?



You're just speculating now. Not every street or alleyway by any means is covered by CCTV, nor are most houses.



You're getting to political for me.



no comment.

I think a whole life tariff is far worse then a death sentence.

Yes there are, but they are also trying to appeal their whole life terms on human rights grounds as several already have, Brussels is not happy about us having whole life terms.
Even having a whole life term does not stop someone killing again, even with solitary there is human physical contact with prison officers.

Lets also remember here that when the moratorium on the death penalty was put in place the British public where told that all murderers would face a life sentence, a whole life term, yet straight away they where releasing murders after as little as 15 years, now its around 8-10 years on average.

Absolute abolishment was written into the treaty, no member state is allowed to have the death penalty, re introduce the death penalty as long as it remains a member nor is it allowed to extradite a prisoner to a country where he will face the death penalty.

Abolition by the way did not come until 1969, but only then for murder, we still maintained a working gallows and the death penalty was still on the books for treason etc.

The human rights act in 1998 put an end to it completely, and finally in 2003 we ratified the 13th protocol the put an end to it for as long as we remain in europe.

Re Bentley - see above, technically like it or not as an accomplice he was equally guilty under British law. I dont think any of us would say he deserved to hang, and yes he should have been reprieved and served a life sentence, but he was not innocent whereas Mahmood and Evans where both innocent of the crimes they where charged with.

So in reality we can only classify it as two innocents, not three.

There is no one to compare against, its better to compare with our own relatively recent history

Evidence for massaging only exists with those that seek out the disparities between reported figures and actual real life events in their own locality, the number of times we see people convicted of lesser offences for an easy prosecution adds to this as does meeting targets, I've seen someone carrying an airsoft pistol that couldn't hurt a fly have it classified as a firearms offence to meet targets, just as others involving guns or knives have been downgraded.
A good case to look at with regard to downgrading is GBH, it used to be cut someone or break a bone and that was GBH, not any more, it seems you need to almost kill someone to be charged with GBH.

I still stand by my earlier statement though that the only way you can guarantee 100% that someone will not kill again is by executing them, any other punishment will still leave them the opportunity to do so again, which enough do already, one innocent murdered because we failed to ensure a murderer could never kill again is a price to high to pay.

 

[CT]

The reason Kenneth Noye got away with the klling of the police officer was down to the circumstances - nothing at all to with money or influence.

Two specialist surveillance cops were in the grounds of Noye's house in the dark trying to gather evidence to connect him to the Brinks Mat robbery. They were dressed in black gear and wearing ski masks in what was a very covert stealth operation.

Noye's dogs as I understand it, attacked the two officers, one of them making good his escape, while Noye attacked one of the officers, stabbing him several times as a result of which the officer died.

I've no doubt whatsoever that he knew full well that the man was a cop, but the defence case was that from the man's mode of dress Noye had no reason to suspect that he was anything other than a criminal trespasser intent on doing him harm, and he acted in self defence being in fear for his life.

It was most unfortunate, but the cops were effectively trespassers acting in a covert manner and it's hardly surprising he got away with it as anyone would have in those circumstances.

Noye is as dangerous a career criminal as we currently have in this country and the fact that he fell into the hands of the law through a murder committed in a stupid road rage incident must have felt like all their Christmases rolled together for the cops who'd been trying to nail him for years.

 

[boyfalldown]

Abolition by the way did not come until 1969, but only then for murder, we still maintained a working gallows and the death penalty was still on the books for treason etc.

thats what I said. But the murder act of 1965 did effectively abolish it. It suspended CP prior to the 1969 act. It also wasn't available as a sentence from the end of 1965 onwards.

Re Bentley - see above, technically like it or not as an accomplice he was equally guilty under British law. I dont think any of us would say he deserved to hang, and yes he should have been reprieved and served a life sentence, but he was not innocent whereas Mahmood and Evans where both innocent of the crimes they where charged with.

So in reality we can only classify it as two innocents, not three.

Bentleys conviction was quashed. Admittedly he would of been retried were he alive but technically thats not guilty. Like it or not Regarding your comments re 2 innocents, how many miscarriages since abolishment would have been sentenced to death?

 

[Garry Edwards]

thats what I said. But the murder act of 1965 did effectively abolish it. It suspended CP prior to the 1969 act. It also wasn't available as a sentence from the end of 1965 onwards.

Bentleys conviction was quashed. Admittedly he would of been retried were he alive but technically thats not guilty. Like it or not Regarding your comments re 2 innocents, how many miscarriages since abolishment would have been sentenced to death?

Bentley was guilty in law but he was described as "3/4 witted" as a result of brain damage sustained when he was trapped in a bomb shelter during WW2. He also had the misfortune to be both taller and older (physically at least) than his accomplice and leader Craig.
Winston Silcott would have been hanged for the murder of PC Keith Blakelock, they would have found out that he was innocent when it was too late.
Barry George was wrongly convicted of shooting Jill Dando dead, from memory I think that the use of a firearm in a murder invoked the death penalty.
Arguably neither Silcott nor George were exactly model citizens but that isn't relevant. They were innocent of murder.

The simple fact of the matter is that a small % of the people that juries tend to trust - police officers, forensic scientists, medical doctors - lie under oath. When that happens, innocent people are convicted.

Hmm, now we are at the tube incident, in the situation they faced and with the intel they where being fed, yes they did the right thing, as far as those on the ground where concerned he was a bomber about to set off a device.
Off course we can say in hindsight they should not have shot him, but had they not and had he been a bomber everyone would have been complaining at the police for not stopping him.
In the end the result was that intel communicated to the officers pursuing him was incorrect, a case of mistaken identity, I don't blame the officers that pulled the triggers but I do blame those who mistakenly identified him.

The list of innocent and/or unarmed people shot dead by police is a lot longer than that.

 

[big soft moose]

I'm sure it would, but my point was the perceived cruelty in evoking the death penalty.
Surely that amounts to torture? and could well turn into a fate worse than death?

I recall from reading 'papillon' that the french used to use solitary confinement as a 'further punishment' for rule breaks by those transported to their penal colonies in french guyana

it was reputed among prisoners that no one could handle longer than 5 or so years in solitary and many prisoners went mad or commited suicide in a shorter term - Henri charierre/papilon was sentenced to 8 years in solitary but this was quashed after about 5.

Now I don't really care about suclliffe, brady, huntley etc - they probably deserve to suffer as their victims did. However this returns to the point of what if you've got the wrong man - wrongly convicting someone and driving them insane is no more humane (many would say less) that executing them.

 

[boyfalldown]

Bentley was guilty in law but he was described as "3/4 witted" as a result of brain damage sustained when he was trapped in a bomb shelter during WW2. He also had the misfortune to be both taller and older (physically at least) than his accomplice and leader Craig.
Winston Silcott would have been hanged for the murder of PC Keith Blakelock, they would have found out that he was innocent when it was too late.
Barry George was wrongly convicted of shooting Jill Dando dead, from memory I think that the use of a firearm in a murder invoked the death penalty.
Arguably neither Silcott nor George were exactly model citizens but that isn't relevant. They were innocent of murder.

which brings us to one of the saddest faccetts of all this, those sentenced to death are nearly always of lower then average IQ for whatever reason.

The simple fact of the matter is that a small % of the people that juries tend to trust - police officers, forensic scientists, medical doctors - lie under oath. When that happens, innocent people are convicted.

Prof. Roy Meadows is the classic example of this. I'm sure he believed the s*** he spouted, but that doesn't stop it being s***. As an aside his evidence is the sole reason juries are no longer able to convict based on 'expert'
testimony alone.

 

[CT]

I really don't see how you can quote the Craig/ Bentley case as a miscarriage.

They were disturbed in the act of an attempted burglary and Craig was armed with a firearm. Despite the fact that only one of them was armed they were both principles in the offence and equally culpable in law for the murder. The interpretation of the words "Let him have it" doesn't really matter and it doesn't matter whether it was said or not - the circumstances alone were sufficient reason for both to hang, but it was only Crag's age which saved him from execution.

If you really believe that this execution was unjust (at that time) or that Bentley was in any way innocent given the fact that they were in the process of committing a crime and murdered a police office trying to affect their arrest, then I think you have some pretty clouded ideas of what is and isn't unjust.

The fact that Bentley's conviction was quashed many years later was yet anther gutless political decision, not one based on the facts or the evidence and a big mistake - just adding fuel to the fire of those of you who like to chalk it up as yet another miscarriage, which it never was.

 

[big soft moose]

which brings us to one of the saddest faccetts of all this, those sentenced to death are nearly always of lower then average IQ for whatever reason.
.

This could be because you have to be pretty ****ing stupid to kill someone in the commision of a crime if you can avoid it due to the increased attention it will bring

more prosaicly it could also be because the IQ test is biased towards 'educated and litterate' and many people from violent criminal backgrounds are not either - which is why they've become criminal rather than politicians and bankers !

 

[CT]

The list of innocent and/or unarmed people shot dead by police is a lot longer than that.

Not this one again! If it existed, the list of bodies currently coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan killed by friendly fire would be considerably longer than that, but it doesn't exist and never will.

 

[boyfalldown]

This could be because you have to be pretty ****ing stupid to kill someone in the commision of a crime if you can avoid it due to the increased attention it will bring

more prosaicly it could also be because the IQ test is biased towards 'educated and litterate' and many people from violent criminal backgrounds are not either - which is why they've become criminal rather than politicians and bankers !

which is true, to a point. But the very sad fact is you're more likely to be executed for the same crime if you have a very low IQ. Same as having a very low IQ seems to be a very common factor in misscariages of justice where no crime has been committed.

The guy Clinton executed while he was running for president was seriously brain damaged (admittedly by shooting himself during arrest). Bentley as above (regardless of guilt) was less then all there. In Bentleys case thats more then demonstrated by his accomplice Craig, only serving 10 years for the same crime.

Which also brings us to the innocent. Colin Stagg and Barry George aren't really all there but they are innocent of the crimes they were accussed of committing. I would of put money that Kiszkoy would have being hung for the murder and rape of an 11 year old girl were that sentence available . After all he did confess (only because he thought he'd be able to go home if he did).

 

[Garry Edwards]

Not this one again! If it existed, the list of bodies currently coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan killed by friendly fire would be considerably longer than that, but it doesn't exist and never will.

Cedric,
Soldiers killed in 'friendly fire' incidents are another tragedy, but unrelated.
The list does exist, as you well know. What you seem to be unable to accept is that
1. I am not anti police
2. I do not assume that if I was an armed police officer that I would do any better (although I am sure that I would hold my hands up and admit to mistakes instead of trying to cover them up)
3. I do not believe that it's even possible to have any kind of effective police force without accepting that they will sometimes make mistakes, sometimes kill innocent people and sometimes employ people who shouldn't have got through the selection process, or kept their jobs.

 

[CT]

Cedric,
Soldiers killed in 'friendly fire' incidents are another tragedy, but unrelated.

No - it's related to firearms use in general - in high pressure situations there will be mistakes - it's in the nature of guns, but I'm sure you know that anyway. It's why I'm totally opposed to arming the police across the board.

The list does exist, as you well know.

I'm sure you're not naive enough to believe that that list reflects the true numbers.

What you seem to be unable to accept is that
1. I am not anti police

I don't believe I ever said or implied that you are.

2. I do not assume that if I was an armed police officer that I would do any better (although I am sure that I would hold my hands up and admit to mistakes instead of trying to cover them up)

OK.

3. I do not believe that it's even possible to have any kind of effective police force without accepting that they will sometimes make mistakes, sometimes kill innocent people and sometimes employ people who shouldn't have got through the selection process, or kept their jobs.

OK again.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I really don't see how you can quote the Craig/ Bentley case as a miscarriage.

They were disturbed in the act of an attempted burglary and Craig was armed with a firearm. Despite the fact that only one of them was armed they were both principles in the offence and equally culpable in law for the murder. The interpretation of the words "Let him have it" doesn't really matter and it doesn't matter whether it was said or not - the circumstances alone were sufficient reason for both to hang, but it was only Crag's age which saved him from execution.

If you really believe that this execution was unjust (at that time) or that Bentley was in any way innocent given the fact that they were in the process of committing a crime and murdered a police office trying to affect their arrest, then I think you have some pretty clouded ideas of what is and isn't unjust.

The fact that Bentley's conviction was quashed many years later was yet anther gutless political decision, not one based on the facts or the evidence and a big mistake - just adding fuel to the fire of those of you who like to chalk it up as yet another miscarriage, which it never was.

Bentley was (technically) in police custody when it is alleged he uttered the words that sealed his fate though.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Bentley was (technically) in police custody when it is alleged he uttered the words that sealed his fate though.

That's right, so arguably he wasn't in a position to give advice to Craig.
'Alleged' is a good word. Bentley denied shouting out anything at all, and the belief in some quarters is that two police officers 'gingered up the evidence' by making this claim, very similar words had been shouted in a very similar case just 2 years earlier and had resulted in the accused, Appleby, being hanged, so it's possible.

Bentley's counsel, who appears to have been both lazy and incompetent, had told Bentley that there was no point in denying that he had shouted out 'Let him have it Chris' and he tried, in cross examination, to establish that Bentley had actually meant 'let him have the gun Chris'. Obviously that didn't work. Judge Goddard didn't help, he told the jury that if they believed that the police evidence on this was a lie then they also had to believe that two police officers who had 'displayed conspicuous courage' were also 'conspicuous liars'.

Arguably, even if Bentley really had said 'let him have it Chris' then Craig would not have been affected by this anyway, as although Craig was 3 years younger, he was by far the dominant character.

All this seems to be a bit off topic, but I think it's relevant because it demonstrates that people who should know better can lie on oath, that incompetent counsel can let their clients down, that Courts can make bad decisions and that Governments can fail to intervene when it happens. If capital punishment exists, that's another dead'un who didn't deserve to die, and if the verdict is subsequently quashed, he's still dead.

 

[Laudrup]

Hmm, now we are at the tube incident, in the situation they faced and with the intel they where being fed, yes they did the right thing, as far as those on the ground where concerned he was a bomber about to set off a device.

Yet they let him board a bus, get off it, and on again. The shooting of de Menezes was a monumental cock up that will live long in the memory.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Yet they let him board a bus, get off it, and on again. The shooting of de Menezes was a monumental cock up that will live long in the memory.

I believe they were really after his naughty elder brother, Dennis.....

 

[boyfalldown]

I believe they were really after his naughty elder brother, Dennis.....

you'd of thought that lack of a big red stripy jumper would have alerted them to the fact they were following the wrong bloke :nuts:

 

[Flash In The Pan]

you'd of thought that lack of a big red stripy jumper would have alerted them to the fact they were following the wrong bloke :nuts:

It's not just people the Police have trouble identifying correctly