The Death Penalty

#21
yes tricam there is a chance that they can be wrong but it relies on the fact that no two people would have the same genome unless they are twins. The chance you refer to is the chance of another person being born with the exact same set of DNA as you, which as you'll agree is somewhat less than 0.01%
 
#22
As regards the accuracy of DNA, I have heard figure such as 1 in 10,000,000 probabilty of being the accused!
That means at least another 5 people in the UK could be convicted on the same evidence, so to be sure we'd have to hang them all.
In some cases it is considerably less accurate than that apparently.
The other issue with DNA is that if an "expert witness" presents DNA evidence at a trial the Jury has no possible way of verifying how accurate his opinion is.

Oh yeah, I am very very pro-hanging. But only if conclusive proof can be produced.
And as long as our Glorious LEader does'nt decide to make critical comment of goverment a capitol offence......
 
#23
I don't have a problem with bringing back the death penality for murder, sex offences, drug-dealing or terrorism. Quite apart from the advances in DNA testing and other forensics, I'm sure the Spooks have developed some extremely powerful truth-serums. Much more efficient than torture and it means the Spook does'nt have to wash the blood out off his clothes afterwards.
Trial by chemicals would be faster cheaper and much more efficient than trial by jury. Those who are found guilty would be either shot or put in a camp and used for medical experiments - much more humane than using animals and the doctors would make faster progress.
However, we have zero chance of the death penality being introduced. The politicians are gutless traitors, the judges are senile old farts and the lawyers are whores.
If we do have the best legal system in the world, the rest of the world has my profound sympathies.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#24
Argue all you wish chaps. It's not going to happen. We've signed up to Europe and have agreed that we will never reinstate the death penalty. Endex.

Wouldn't be a bad thing though. Particularly for certain offences.
 
#25
Quite right Rowrums... In a perfectly preformed test the chance of a false match is much better than 99.99%... But the source of the error is not the testing itself... What if a bent copper plants some DNA evidence to implicate someone? What if a criminal plants someone elses DNA material to clear themselves? What if the testing laboratory are sloppy? Suddenly, the 1 in a billion error rate is getting a lot worse...

Tricam.
 
#26
tricam said:
Quite right Rowrums... In a perfectly preformed test the chance of a false match is much better than 99.99%... But the source of the error is not the testing itself... What if a bent copper plants some DNA evidence to implicate someone? What if a criminal plants someone elses DNA material to clear themselves? What if the testing laboratory are sloppy? Suddenly, the 1 in a billion error rate is getting a lot worse...

Tricam.
A fair point, to which I have no answer. I suppose the DNA would have to aid conviction but should not be the sole piece of evidence.
 
#29
this was always going to be a sensitive post topic. We can swirl it round our heads, but it will never be reinstated, even though some not so nice people, who tear the heart and souls out of innocent families are allowed to live in a cosy cell with a TV, 3 square meals a day and able to study and pass exams that would be no use to tit* on a frog... deserve it.
Bitter????
 
#30
luke said:
Slightly_Nasty said:
"Nor is DNA absolutely conclusive in many cases"

In what cases would DNA proof not be absolutely conclusive? I can't think of any.
Well perhaps if your twin brother committed a crime and you were picked out from an ID parade :D

...Or anyone who has been a blood donor, bone marrow donor or received blood products, there are a couple of blood product donors/recipients about. 8O :lol:

I can see what people are saying reference the Brummie Six, confessions and explosive residue, but on the other hand, if they had received the death penalty they wouldn't of been able to appeal against the conviction and the convictions would appear to be safe.

I think we should just have people 'disappear' must be a lot cheaper than a prison sentence or a length of rope! :D

CC_TA


I'm just off to the Gallowstree to string up a couple of kids whove been involved in some very nasty littering round the estate, laters!
 
#31
" But I don't understand why people keep trotting out this 'death penalty must be introduced' thing every time a little kid or police officer is killed."
Kids and Polis deserve special attention, one because they are KIDS and the other because in our Unarmed Police Force they need all the back up we can give them when they are required to place Their Life on the line, for us.
john
 
#32
Hi all, been lurking a while plucking up the courage to post like the walt I am.

There are many reasons why the death penalty is a very bad idea, I'll list the ones that immediately come to mind:

1. It condones the notion that it is justified to take the life of someone IN COLD BLOOD who has done something you disagree with. A lot of murders are commited for this very same reason.

2. Once a criminal has passed the threshold of crime that would likely result in a death sentence, they have nothing to lose. Hence a murderer of one person, may as well go on to murder another twenty.

3. As already stated, the risk of error.

4. It is not a deterent to most criminals (working on the 'I won't get caught' syndrome)

Going off topic now, great forum, good intelligent debating for the most part (which is a rare commodity in the UK these days...isn't Tony trying to get it banned?), look forward to more.
 
#34
I'm against it too, but if it must come back can we have a provision whereby it can be applied if Chris Moyles gets so much as a parking ticket?
 

Similar threads

Top