Another reason why the death penalty should be restored

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?



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?



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?



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.
We will have to disagree on the need for total judicial reform.
And that the 'price of a civilised society' mentioned earlier in the thread by others is the deaths of those killed by released murderers.
And that hanging should be part of a judicial system for the likes of Brady, Hyndley, Huntley, etc.
Happy to disagree with you. You're entitled to put the rights of murderers first; they after all are citizens, probably victims of their upbringing, maybe blameless and possibly not responsible for their actions. I prefer to see victims protected from them.
 
er? i actually didn't ask you....you assumed that i did but that's what overs sensitive people do .

Meh
This looks suspiciously like a question to me. It even has one of them question mark thingies

...For sure, same as some are just waiting for the chance to commit legalized murder - aren't you?
Mind where you go

 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
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.
Indeed, infact a large percentage of those sentenced to death in this country were in fact reprieved. I haven't got the figure to hand but you'll be surprised at the amount of murderers who didn't meet AP.

This is an interesting link for n the figures.

Reprieves, the curse of the system
 
Last edited:
I prefer to see victims protected from them.
I prefer to see victims of miscarriages of justice protected from being executed.

Partly because they can't be compensated when they're dead but mostly because we're all human including policemen and forensic scientists and I'm as much at the mercy of their imperfections as Stabby McScroat.
 
We will have to disagree on the need for total judicial reform.
And that the 'price of a civilised society' mentioned earlier in the thread by others is the deaths of those killed by released murderers.
And that hanging should be part of a judicial system for the likes of Brady, Hyndley, Huntley, etc.
Happy to disagree with you. You're entitled to put the rights of murderers first; they after all are citizens, probably victims of their upbringing, maybe blameless and possibly not responsible for their actions. I prefer to see victims protected from them.
The victims WILL be protected from them...... by a cheap chipboard box with electroplated handles
 
I prefer to see victims of miscarriages of justice protected from being executed.

Partly because they can't be compensated when they're dead but mostly because we're all human including policemen and forensic scientists and I'm as much at the mercy of their imperfections as Stabby McScroat.
Don’t forget lawyers.

They’re the ones for whom the words ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ have even less meaning than ‘just’ and ‘unjust’.


Getting a guilty bastard off or jailing getting whoever Plod pulled in convicted is what they’re there for.


And they fight tooth and nail to cover up when they get it wrong.
 
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.
We will have to disagree on the need for total judicial reform.
And that the 'price of a civilised society' mentioned earlier in the thread by others is the deaths of those killed by released murderers.
And that hanging should be part of a judicial system for the likes of Brady, Hyndley, Huntley, etc.
Happy to disagree with you. You're entitled to put the rights of murderers first; they after all are citizens, probably victims of their upbringing, maybe blameless and possibly not responsible for their actions. I prefer to see victims protected from them.
I can't see where anybody has suggested putting the rights of criminals, and in this case murderers, first.

I would argue that fair, equitable and proportionate revenge/punishment is justice. And I've seen nobody argue that convicted murderers should be released to kill again.

I'm of the opinion however, that if a society accepts the concept of human rights, then any rights so defined should be applicable to the lowest of the low, the worst of society. Or they cannot be regarded as 'human' rights. People may disagree as to what should constitute a human right or believe that human rights as presently defined are not fit for purpose but those are separate arguments.

I've already made the argument that execution is a legitimate punishment, morally right and just. But the practicalities dictate that our justice system is imperfect and guilt cannot be guaranteed in all cases. We cannot reasonably select cases which are 'obvious' such as with Lee Rigby because any sanction must be available to all, or there is no fairness in sentencing, no justice.

Execution, while morally right, cannot be used in practise because it is inherently unjust, by virtue of the fact that innocent people can be and have been, executed.
 
I long for the day when a barrister says, "M'Lord, my client is an evil cnut, who is as guilty as hell, had decent parents . a good schooling, but chose to be an unspeakable twat.

I would recommend capital punishment........ "



Hopefully, it would be Anthony Lynton Blair........
 
I can't see where anybody has suggested putting the rights of criminals, and in this case murderers, first.

I would argue that fair, equitable and proportionate revenge/punishment is justice. And I've seen nobody argue that convicted murderers should be released to kill again.

I'm of the opinion however, that if a society accepts the concept of human rights, then any rights so defined should be applicable to the lowest of the low, the worst of society. Or they cannot be regarded as 'human' rights. People may disagree as to what should constitute a human right or believe that human rights as presently defined are not fit for purpose but those are separate arguments.

I've already made the argument that execution is a legitimate punishment, morally right and just. But the practicalities dictate that our justice system is imperfect and guilt cannot be guaranteed in all cases. We cannot reasonably select cases which are 'obvious' such as with Lee Rigby because any sanction must be available to all, or there is no fairness in sentencing, no justice.

Execution, while morally right, cannot be used in practise because it is inherently unjust, by virtue of the fact that innocent people can be and have been, executed.

I disagree with your last paragraph only.


Personally, I don’t think the State has the right to kill other than to prevent others dying (eg armed Bobby shooting a gunman) or, in war, killing such of the enemy as will bring the end of hostilities about.


Your arguments about the practicalities- inadequate legal system, from Plod to Screw to parole service- I’m with you entirely.


I’m just not of the view that anyone, least of all some Civil Servant, has the right to kill, in cold blood, someone who is not a threat to anyone. Whatever they’ve done.


Edit: except Piers Morgan, obvs. Hang him.
 
I long for the day when a barrister says, "M'Lord, my client is an evil cnut, who is as guilty as hell, had decent parents . a good schooling, but chose to be an unspeakable twat.

I would recommend capital punishment........ "



Hopefully, it would be Anthony Lynton Blair........

I don’t think Tony would ever say that, unless his client was Gordon Brown.
 
When a crime has been commited most of us are offended, paticularly a crime against the person. We want justice for the victims of the crime. We want retribution. We want the perpertrator punnished. We want vengence.
We want to feel these acts these an aborration. We want to feel, safe as we go our diaily lives.

Police services and Prosecutors, work hard to provide us with a sense of security in these matters. Most of those convicted are guilty of the offense that they are accused of committing.
Occationaly, some are convicted wrongly. There is great pressure exerted to solve the most heinous crimes; murder, rape, armed robbery, crimes against children the edery and defenseless, ect.
False convictions have been obtained by fabricated evidence, purjury, junk science, slipshod forensic and coerced confessions. There are times when investigators just "know" in their gut this is the guilty bastard person, without the solid evidence. Sometimes there just are not enough clues.
It is not possiable to compensate an innocent that has been wrongly executed. Can you feel truely secure in the knowledge that You could wrongy forfit you life in a judicial hanging.
It is not an easy question and it is without easy answers. At least not cheap and effective ones.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top