Another reason why the death penalty should be restored

In 1951, it took Albert Pierrepoint 7 seconds from pinioning the prisoner to having him dangling at the end of the rope.
Yeah the guy doing the tour told us that fact. When I asked him about Albert at the Crum, he only knew that Henry had been present at executions there. I seen yesterday that Albert in fact had assisted in 1933 at the Crumlin Road jail.
 
Tosh and nonsense if you can extrapolate that from what I have been saying.
Until malice, incompetence, convenience and plain old just being human can be removed from the mix, there's no such thing as an absolutely safe conviction.

Under those conditions, hanging someone because theirs was 'safe enough is to say that one set if innocent lives in the abstract (those who'd be killed by a released murderer) is more important than another set (the innocents who'd be executed by mistake).

For me, that's a hard position to justify without devaluing the lives of all innocents.
 
Was Albert Pierrepoint not also believed to have said that he was opposed to the death sentence but felt that he was acting in the best interests of the state. I suppose someone had to do it.
 
Extremes of murder would include cases like Hindley & Brady, Huntley, the man who raped and killed his toddler daughter, the Aunt of Victoria Climbie, etc. etc.
There's the problem with Capital Punishment though. Extremes of murder would include Sally Clark, who 'murdered' two of her own children.

Except she didn't, the expert witness turned out to be bad at maths and the pathologist to be incompetent. She would have swung for it if we still had hanging.

I've no problem with Capital Punishment in theory. I couldn't care less if murderers, rapists and child abusers die. We still lock too many innocent people up for me to believe we'll never execute an innocent person though.
 
So, we are now in the territory of pre-emptive punishment? The UK legal system punishes someone for a crime they have committed, not for what they may do in the future.



Until human beings are born perfect and 100% law-abiding, crime is an inescapable fact of life, I'm afraid. You're right, having a relative murdered must be one of the greatest traumas that a person can endure; I've never been anywhere near that level of grief. However, accepting that crimes do occur, then many questions must be asked & answered about how we deal with that crime; I do not for one moment think that the UK legal system is perfect, it does make mistakes.

However, reducing judicial system costs, administrative ease, and elimination of the possibility of re-offending for me are pretty poor reasons for implementing a which - on past performance - may well condemn an innocent person to death.



I think we are in agreement. I oppose capital punishment for three principal reasons:

1. I view it as state enacted brutality which belongs in the Dark Ages.
2. The uniquely irreversible nature of killing someone means that I do not trust the UK legal system with that power over their own populace.
3. What it says about you as a nation, if you'll execute someone knowing that their conviction is not 100% secure - because none ever are. The judicial system aims to make convictions as secure as can be, but because it is run by human beings, who by nature are fallible, errors will be made.

What about if they simply confess and have knowledge of the events that only the killers can know - or were filmed doing it ,as those cnuts that murdered Lee Rigby were- i say that they were 100% guilty and admitted it too.

Your explanation of your reason against it become totally invalid especially when you state 'none ever are'.....when i've just give you one example where there is no doubt about who did what.
 
There's the problem with Capital Punishment though. Extremes of murder would include Sally Clark, who 'murdered' two of her own children.

Except she didn't, the expert witness turned out to be bad at maths and the pathologist to be incompetent. She would have swung for it if we still had hanging.

I've no problem with Capital Punishment in theory. I couldn't care less if murderers, rapists and child abusers die. We still lock too many innocent people up for me to believe we'll never execute an innocent person though.
What I THOUGHT I had been saying is that our legal system isn't working and beeds major reform so that truth, rather than a conviction or acquittal, is the goal.Remove adversarial courtrooms. Examine ALL evidence. Evidence is neutral and does not 'belong ' to 'prosecution' or 'defence'.

And innocent victims might have a chance of living out their naural lives. Whether they are the wrongly accused or the criminally murdered.

Using your logic one might think you care nothing for those killed in the Birmingham pub bombs so long as those who did it were convicted with paperwork invented after their trial.
 
What I THOUGHT I had been saying is that our legal system isn't working and beeds major reform so that truth, rather than a conviction or acquittal, is the goal.Remove adversarial courtrooms. Examine ALL evidence. Evidence is neutral and does not 'belong ' to 'prosecution' or 'defence'.
Evidence isn't neutral. If you and I have an argument then we'll both have a different version of what happened both to cause the argument and what was said and done during the argument. If we end up in court then both our versions are evidence but neither version will be neutral. If I'm accused of stabbing you and the knife has my DNA on it does that mean I killed you or that I made you a nice meal that morning and an unknown killer later used the same knife?

Unless people are given the chance to challenge the evidence against them how can they ever defend themselves?

Using your logic one might think you care nothing for those killed in the Birmingham pub bombs so long as those who did it were convicted with paperwork invented after their trial.
Weren't the Birmingham Six appeals based more around the police inventing evidence and suppressing evidence rather than a bit of paperwork?
 
'The fruit of my experience has this bitter after-taste: that I do not now believe that any of the hundreds of executions I carried out has in any way acted as a deterrent against future murder. Capital punishment, in my view, achieved nothing except revenge.'

Albert Pierrepoint disagrees and he might know a bit about it.
I'm not arguing for or against.

I don't understand why a hangman has any more insight than anybody else and that quote is merely one man's opinion; no more valid than someone's who's only hanged 2 people or someone's who's hanged nobody.
 
I'm not arguing for or against.

I don't understand why a hangman has any more insight than anybody else and that quote is merely one man's opinion; no more valid than someone's who's only hanged 2 people or someone's who's hanged nobody.
How many did he hang who were innocent?
 
What about if they simply confess and have knowledge of the events that only the killers can know - or were filmed doing it ,as those cnuts that murdered Lee Rigby were- i say that they were 100% guilty and admitted it too.

Your explanation of your reason against it become totally invalid especially when you state 'none ever are'.....when i've just give you one example where there is no doubt about who did what.
1. Confessions aren't 100% reliable - vulnerable people can be intimidated or coerced into confessing, and have been (eg by the West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad), not to mention the mentally ill, or those with learning difficulties. In fact I think that Stefan Kiszko, mentioned earlier, had significant learning difficulties.

2. You are fixated on the Lee Rigby case, I sense because he was a fellow soldier. Brutal and reprehensible as that case was, I think it is better to incarcerate Abebolajo and Adebowale to deny them their liberty and to attempt to rehabilitate (though it's very likely impossible with those two). Because that's our justice system - we punish by the deprivation of liberty. If you hung those two, you'd make martyrs out of them to every other f**ed up wannabe-Jihadi with a steak knife and a Vauxhall Astra.

3. I stand by my point that no conviction is 100% secure, because the system is staffed by human beings, who - with the best will in the world - are prone to error. They just are. Not every case will offer the drugged-up lunatic posing with a meat cleaver in front of the scene of the crime as evidence. Most cases will have webs of factors with differing assessments of likelihoods and certainties, arguments and counter-arguments, leading to the jury's verdict. Which comes back to my point that I believe human life to be too sacrosanct to put in the hands of 12 Jeremy Kyle disciples.

As I've said before, the current system isn't perfect, but it's the best we can do with the resource, technology and legislative constraints at our disposal. I would that we lived in a perfect world..........
 
It seems to me that all punishment is revenge and that punishment/revenge is meted out by the state in order that personal punishment/revenge is not exacted.

I think capital punishment accords with natural law and that a society is entitled to use it if it sees fit. It is as morally correct as it would be if an individual killed to enact punishment/revenge. I consider killing, as an act of punishment/revenge, to be different from murder. Punishment/revenge is redress, is justice.

The most persuasive counter argument to capital punishment is the killing/execution of a wrongly convicted person. An action for which there is no appropriate or equivalent redress. And one that is open to abuse by the authorities.

Thus, whilst capital punishment is a reasonable and just sanction for the guilty, there is no way of ensuring guilt in all cases. 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt' is not actually proof at all, proof being a purely mathematical concept. And proof beyond reasonable doubt can be manufactured.

And therefore, capital punishment should not be a sanction available to the state.
 
It seems to me that all punishment is revenge and that punishment/revenge is meted out by the state in order that personal punishment/revenge is not exacted.

I think capital punishment accords with natural law and that a society is entitled to use it if it sees fit. It is as morally correct as it would be if an individual killed to enact punishment/revenge. I consider killing, as an act of punishment/revenge, to be different from murder. Punishment/revenge is redress, is justice.

The most persuasive counter argument to capital punishment is the killing/execution of a wrongly convicted person. An action for which there is no appropriate or equivalent redress. And one that is open to abuse by the authorities.

Thus, whilst capital punishment is a reasonable and just sanction for the guilty, there is no way of ensuring guilt in all cases. 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt' is not actually proof at all, proof being a purely mathematical concept. And proof beyond reasonable doubt can be manufactured.

And therefore, capital punishment should not be a sanction available to the state.
Couldn't agree more.

Superb post
 
I can't agree. There is a difference between justice and revenge. Justice is giving Jon Venables so many chances to become a civilised member of society. Revenge would have him swinging from a Scouse lamp post. And his family hounded from their homes.

This country mostly gets the balance right but many on here would seem to be arguing that the rights of those who kill are more important than society's right to peaceful enjoyment of a quiet life. Release the killer to do it again and if they get you next you are the 'price of a civilised society' and your family must put up with that.
 
It seems to me that all punishment is revenge and that punishment/revenge is meted out by the state in order that personal punishment/revenge is not exacted.

I think capital punishment accords with natural law and that a society is entitled to use it if it sees fit. It is as morally correct as it would be if an individual killed to enact punishment/revenge. I consider killing, as an act of punishment/revenge, to be different from murder. Punishment/revenge is redress, is justice.

The most persuasive counter argument to capital punishment is the killing/execution of a wrongly convicted person. An action for which there is no appropriate or equivalent redress. And one that is open to abuse by the authorities.

Thus, whilst capital punishment is a reasonable and just sanction for the guilty, there is no way of ensuring guilt in all cases. 'Proof beyond reasonable doubt' is not actually proof at all, proof being a purely mathematical concept. And proof beyond reasonable doubt can be manufactured.

And therefore, capital punishment should not be a sanction available to the state.
but the counter argument is that you may have the death penalty, but you don't have to use it for all cases.
There can still be a life sentence judgement on some cases.
 
wasn't talking about you.. ..stop being over sensitive - and i don't GAF whether you are are not, but thanks for telling me anyway.
You asked me a question, I answered it. Who's being over sensitive?
 
Evidence isn't neutral. If you and I have an argument then we'll both have a different version of what happened both to cause the argument and what was said and done during the argument. If we end up in court then both our versions are evidence but neither version will be neutral. If I'm accused of stabbing you and the knife has my DNA on it does that mean I killed you or that I made you a nice meal that morning and an unknown killer later used the same knife?

My empty stomach? The blood on your clothes?

And what's in the current adversarial system to stop your barrister from saying i deserved it and destroying my character to justify your actions?

Unless people are given the chance to challenge the evidence against them how can they ever defend themselves?

So it's not your or my evidence. It's a knife.
Neutral independent forensic testing will reveal what it reveals without either 'side' influencing or hiding it.



Weren't the Birmingham Six appeals based more around the police inventing evidence and suppressing evidence rather than a bit of paperwork?

Unquestionably the west Midlands police made a giant cockup in their desperation for a quick conviction However in the end good evidence had to be ignored and a bunch of murderers acquitted. The tool used by the barrister was missing paperwork. If the police had just presented the evidence and trusted the court the murderers would imho still be in jail and the victims and families would have justice.

You still can't argue that citizens are collateral damage in the protection of rights of murderers.
 
I can't agree. There is a difference between justice and revenge. Justice is giving Jon Venables so many chances to become a civilised member of society. Revenge would have him swinging from a Scouse lamp post. And his family hounded from their homes.

This country mostly gets the balance right but many on here would seem to be arguing that the rights of those who kill are more important than society's right to peaceful enjoyment of a quiet life. Release the killer to do it again and if they get you next you are the 'price of a civilised society' and your family must put up with that.
If I come across as implying the point in bold above, my apologies, that's not my intent. I'd more accurately describe it as Chas-and-GRB-and-Taff-and-Fat Cav's right to be protected from unjust conviction and execution by the state is more important than the revenge thirst that some feel may be slaked if we set up, endorsed and maintained a state run execution system.
 
1. Confessions aren't 100% reliable - vulnerable people can be intimidated or coerced into confessing, and have been (eg by the West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad), not to mention the mentally ill, or those with learning difficulties. In fact I think that Stefan Kiszko, mentioned earlier, had significant learning difficulties.

2. You are fixated on the Lee Rigby case, I sense because he was a fellow soldier. Brutal and reprehensible as that case was, I think it is better to incarcerate Abebolajo and Adebowale to deny them their liberty and to attempt to rehabilitate (though it's very likely impossible with those two). Because that's our justice system - we punish by the deprivation of liberty. If you hung those two, you'd make martyrs out of them to every other f**ed up wannabe-Jihadi with a steak knife and a Vauxhall Astra.

3. I stand by my point that no conviction is 100% secure, because the system is staffed by human beings, who - with the best will in the world - are prone to error. They just are. Not every case will offer the drugged-up lunatic posing with a meat cleaver in front of the scene of the crime as evidence. Most cases will have webs of factors with differing assessments of likelihoods and certainties, arguments and counter-arguments, leading to the jury's verdict. Which comes back to my point that I believe human life to be too sacrosanct to put in the hands of 12 Jeremy Kyle disciples.

As I've said before, the current system isn't perfect, but it's the best we can do with the resource, technology and legislative constraints at our disposal. I would that we lived in a perfect world..........

Fixated eh?....first time that i actually mentioned it was in my last post where i used it as an example of when it was 100% clear who did what, as a counter to your ridiculous quote of saying that no convictions for the death penalty are ever 100% correct, when it pretty obvious that that one was.

You then fall under the we mustn't make Martyrs out of people in case it encourage what? - further attacks - more anger .....hmm? i'll wager they don't need much more incentive to kill us. and killing one would at least stop him radicalizing others while banged up.

What you have just written is that no conviction is 100% secure?.... so even if you and 11 other people saw at first hand, a murder, you still wouldn't trust that conviction for murder?... what are you some kind of trendy, liberal feckwit?

Human life is sacrosanct , what a lovely word - aren't the victims life's also worthy?

You're being being all over sensitive drama queenish again aint ya? - and letting your fragile ego and your 'i only i can be right' mantra get in the way again....

Very dull and not at all pragmatic i'm afraid, you argument that even with cctv, DNA and even a confession, as evidence, to get to 'Beyond reasonable doubt' stage of a trail you will never accept the validity of the death sentence award , just shows ignorance rather than any real persuasive argument against it.

Meh.
 
My empty stomach? The blood on your clothes?
The presence or absence of blood means nothing - I can easily burn a set of clothes long before the police ever turn up and ask me if I know what's happened to you. Similarly there could be traces of blood from a nose bleed or cut you had days or even weeks ago. Unless I have the chance to argue my side of the story then how can I possibly have a fair trial?

And what's in the current adversarial system to stop your barrister from saying i deserved it and destroying my character to justify your actions?
If it's true (if, for example, there's a history of domestic violence or sexual abuse from the victim against the defendant) then why shouldn't it be used in their defence?

So it's not your or my evidence. It's a knife.
Neutral independent forensic testing will reveal what it reveals without either 'side' influencing or hiding it.
The only thing that forensic testing will show is that (in this hypothetical case) you've been stabbed with it and that I've touched it. Unless I'm given a chance to tell the court why I touched it then how can I possibly defend myself from the accusation that I was the one who stabbed you?

Unquestionably the west Midlands police made a giant cockup in their desperation for a quick conviction However in the end good evidence had to be ignored and a bunch of murderers acquitted. The tool used by the barrister was missing paperwork. If the police had just presented the evidence and trusted the court the murderers would imho still be in jail and the victims and families would have justice.

You still can't argue that citizens are collateral damage in the protection of rights of murderers.
They probably wouldn't still be in jail, quite simply because they probably didn't do it. Forensic evidence was shown to be comprehensively flawed and the police and prison authorities were shown to have fabricated evidence and to have tortured the accused men. They weren't released because there was a paperwork mistake, they were released because there was no real evidence that proved they'd committed the crimes.

Nobody is arguing that anyone is 'collateral damage' in the protection of murders. What I (and others) have said is that our justice system simply makes too many mistakes to be confident that we would never execute an innocent person.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top