Why Britain needs to re-instate the death penalty

A thought has just occurred - The policewoman who made the decision to kill the innocent Brazilian has been said to have made the correct decision, based on the evidence available to her at the time. By some, if not most.

Do people who hold this view have a similar view in favour of capital punishment, in regard to the chance of possible innocence of the condemned?

I'd find the answers interesting, especially if anybody could explain their reasoning if they thought the cop right but capital punishment wrong by reason of possible innocence.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
A thought has just occurred - The policewoman who made the decision to kill the innocent Brazilian has been said to have made the correct decision, based on the evidence available to her at the time. By some, if not most.

Do people who hold this view have a similar view in favour of capital punishment, in regard to the chance of possible innocence of the condemned?

I'd find the answers interesting, especially if anybody could explain their reasoning if they thought the cop right but capital punishment wrong by reason of possible innocence.
Because under section 3 of the criminal law.act, reasonable force may be used to defend life and limb of yourself and others (check), to make a lawful arrest or to prevent the commission of a crime. None of that applies with a prisoner in custody and on trial.
 
Because under section 3 of the criminal law.act, reasonable force may be used to defend life and limb of yourself and others (check), to make a lawful arrest or to prevent the commission of a crime. None of that applies with a prisoner in custody and on trial.
Although in the case in question there was no danger to life and limb other than the armed officers present. He wasn't subject to lawful arrest as he was not a suspect in any crime, nor was any crime about to be committed by him.
 
Because under section 3 of the criminal law.act, reasonable force may be used to defend life and limb of yourself and others (check), to make a lawful arrest or to prevent the commission of a crime. None of that applies with a prisoner in custody and on trial.
Which doesn't really answer the question posed. Some see capital punishment as reasonable; I wondered if anybody thought capital punishment wrong because of possible innocence, while thinking that the killing of an innocent man was justifiable.

While you've given an answer, I've no idea what you think about what I asked.
 
A thought has just occurred - The policewoman who made the decision to kill the innocent Brazilian has been said to have made the correct decision, based on the evidence available to her at the time. By some, if not most.

Do people who hold this view have a similar view in favour of capital punishment, in regard to the chance of possible innocence of the condemned?

I'd find the answers interesting, especially if anybody could explain their reasoning if they thought the cop right but capital punishment wrong by reason of possible innocence.
The decision to shoot was made in the belief that to not shoot would result in the deaths of a number of innocents.

The same can't really be said of a prisoner.

unless it's that guy off law abiding citizen.
 
The decision to shoot was made in the belief that to not shoot would result in the deaths of a number of innocents.

The same can't really be said of a prisoner.

unless it's that guy off law abiding citizen.
Again, not really answering my question.

If a person is hanged and later it turns out that he was innocent, the decision to execute is based on the information available at the time. I cannot see how one is justifiable and the other not.
 
Again, not really answering my question.

If a person is hanged and later it turns out that he was innocent, the decision to execute is based on the information available at the time. I cannot see how one is justifiable and the other not.
A person who is hanged is locked in a cell and is no danger to anyone (other than other prisoners and prison staff). Someone killed by police/military/intelligence services is (assuming it's a legal kill) killed because there's a genuine belief that if they're not killed they could hurt or kill someone else. What happened to JCM was a tragic accident but whoever it was that pulled the trigger did so in the genuine belief they were sitting on top of a suicide bomber.

To me there's a pretty big difference in the two scenarios. Personally I don't really have a problem with people guilty of certain crimes being executed, the problem is that even with all the scientific advances we've made we still wrongly convict people on a regular basis.
 
A person who is hanged is locked in a cell and is no danger to anyone (other than other prisoners and prison staff). Someone killed by police/military/intelligence services is (assuming it's a legal kill) killed because there's a genuine belief that if they're not killed they could hurt or kill someone else. What happened to JCM was a tragic accident but whoever it was that pulled the trigger did so in the genuine belief they were sitting on top of a suicide bomber.

To me there's a pretty big difference in the two scenarios. Personally I don't really have a problem with people guilty of certain crimes being executed, the problem is that even with all the scientific advances we've made we still wrongly convict people on a regular basis.
Thank you; exactly the sort of answer I was hoping for. I accept that your reasoning re different scenarios is sound.

The other question remains - If the decision to kill the Brazilian had not been taken and his subsequent innocence been apparent, should we be condemning and punishing the copper concerned for not killing him?
 
The other question remains - If the decision to kill the Brazilian had not been taken and his subsequent innocence been apparent, should we be condemning and punishing the copper concerned for not killing him?
If he hadn't been killed then no-one outside of the police/intelligence services would ever have known about the operation so it wouldn't be a consideration. Assuming it did somehow come out then I doubt it would have been something you'd attack the police for - if he had been a suicide bomber and he wasn't killed and it had got out that the police could have stopped him but didn't then they'd have been slaughtered in the press and online though.
 
If a person is hanged and later it turns out that he was innocent, the decision to execute is based on the information available at the time. I cannot see how one is justifiable and the other not.
I think the reasonable test would hinge on the amount of time available for deliberation.

Personally, I think it's understandable that liberating troops took their immediate revulsion out on the SS camp guards but that's not to say I approve or think it should have been condoned because mitigating factors are not enough for aqcuittal. I also think there's a vast difference between that immediate revulsion and the reasoned and argued decision inherent to a judicial death sentence.
 
Again, not really answering my question.

If a person is hanged and later it turns out that he was innocent, the decision to execute is based on the information available at the time. I cannot see how one is justifiable and the other not.
I told you why despite your protestations to the contrary.
 
Thank you; exactly the sort of answer I was hoping for. I accept that your reasoning re different scenarios is sound.

The other question remains - If the decision to kill the Brazilian had not been taken and his subsequent innocence been apparent, should we be condemning and punishing the copper concerned for not killing him?
you're being daft now.
 
I told you why despite your protestations to the contrary.
You're correct, my apologies. I'd hoped for more replies in a similar vein to JBM's but I have to accept that people will reply as they wish rather than as I wish. Others aren't responsible for my lack of understanding.

My earlier response was not intended as a criticism.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
The decision to shoot was made in the belief that to not shoot would result in the deaths of a number of innocents.
Although the surveillance officer who sat next to Menezes on the train had no such belief.
 
you're being daft now.
It must appear so, however, if he'd been a terrorist and she'd not made the decision, some posters assert that she would have been disciplined. As if there's a policy that in such a situation it was her duty to order a kill. My question is, if for some reason she hadn't made the decision, would the non-adherence to policy/duty be a disciplinary matter, even though he turned out to be innocent?

It seems a perfectly cromulent question to me but then again, I may well just be daft.
 
A much more important book than 1984 and simply written so that hopefully even socialists could understand it.
Well he tried.
Important at the time but that time has gone.

1984 remains relevant because it is about distorting truth for political gain, and the diminuation of justice, education and free speech.
 
A thought has just occurred - The policewoman who made the decision to kill the innocent Brazilian has been said to have made the correct decision, based on the evidence available to her at the time. By some, if not most.

Do people who hold this view have a similar view in favour of capital punishment, in regard to the chance of possible innocence of the condemned?

I'd find the answers interesting, especially if anybody could explain their reasoning if they thought the cop right but capital punishment wrong by reason of possible innocence.

This is why the Met was charged with a Section 3 H&S offence - a corporate failure matter- rather than any individual bobbies getting it in the neck.
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
Which doesn't really answer the question posed. Some see capital punishment as reasonable; I wondered if anybody thought capital punishment wrong because of possible innocence, while thinking that the killing of an innocent man was justifiable.

While you've given an answer, I've no idea what you think about what I asked.
I think very similar to JBM a post or two after yours I've quoted above. I'm against the death penalty on both economic and moral grounds as 1/ it's often a lot more expensive keeping a prisoner on death row than just keeping them in high security for the extra decade until they mark it from natural causes anyway (approximate figures, read an article a good few years ago but have slept.MANY times since then) and 2/ it is never moral to put someone to death when they are effectively at your mercy due to superior force being at your disposal. Overmatch in firepower in a military or police situation doesn't count as they can still be a threat to life and limb.

As for the Brazilian sparky, it was effectively an industrial accident. The officer pulling the trigger and the one that ordered the trigger pulling had every reason to believe AT THE TIME that he was a risk to the lives of multiple people. If the int officer sat next to sparky boy didn't think so, then at the time it matters not if he cannot communicate that information. It was a screw up of huge proportions but those decisions were taken in good faith basednon the flawed info available.
 
I think very similar to JBM a post or two after yours I've quoted above. I'm against the death penalty on both economic and moral grounds as 1/ it's often a lot more expensive keeping a prisoner on death row than just keeping them in high security for the extra decade until they mark it from natural causes anyway (approximate figures, read an article a good few years ago but have slept.MANY times since then) and 2/ it is never moral to put someone to death when they are effectively at your mercy due to superior force being at your disposal. Overmatch in firepower in a military or police situation doesn't count as they can still be a threat to life and limb.

As for the Brazilian sparky, it was effectively an industrial accident. The officer pulling the trigger and the one that ordered the trigger pulling had every reason to believe AT THE TIME that he was a risk to the lives of multiple people. If the int officer sat next to sparky boy didn't think so, then at the time it matters not if he cannot communicate that information. It was a screw up of huge proportions but those decisions were taken in good faith basednon the flawed info available.
Very interesting, your #2 in the first paragraph, never heard that opined before.

Can you expand on it at all, to give an idea of how you came to reason that way. Not being argumentative or critical, but I'm unable to ponder on it, with it being a new concept?

Does it just concern capital punishment or are there other contexts; and do you see anything comparable in other animals?
 

Similar threads

Top