Why Britain needs to re-instate the death penalty

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.
It was not her duty to order a kill.

it was her responsibility to analyse the information at hand, weigh up the pros and cons of a course of action and then take a course of action... Or not.

other than it involving a death, I'm not really sure how you can compare any police or security force killing with a execution.
 
You're right, but I'll let you into a little secret. As much as I enjoy pointing out to the ageing internet hardman how stupid he is, I'm not involved enough to google 42,000 different sites to see what happened to them.

If I was a betting man, knowing that the Germans put a lot of effort into covering up what they'd done at the extermination camps and also knowing that the SS were well aware of how even their front line comrades were treated when captured by the Soviets, I'd put my money on the number of camps that were taken by Ivan while still manned by any kind of significant number of SS personnel being somewhere around 0.

Thank you for the explanation.

Yes, that make sense that the German SS would have left before the Soviets were near.

Do you have any idea what have happened to the locally recruited SS Auxiliary troops and 'Police' that sometimes assisted in guarding the camps in Lithuania, Rumania, Estonia?

I assume that they may have just travelled the few miles back home to their homes and families?
 
My argument is that human rights law should not be written for civilised persons, but rather with the lowest of the low in mind. That it should decree the minimal rights accorded to the lowest, and thus to all, just for being a human
I'm not quite sure that I understand that sentiment?

If a child molester raped and then murdered a child or someone hacked a frail senior citizen to death, why would they be entitled to or afforded the same rights as me , who works hard, causes no issues and exists under the constraints of a civilised society?
 
If a child molester raped and then murdered a child or someone hacked a frail senior citizen to death, why would they be entitled to or afforded the same rights as me , who works hard, causes no issues and exists under the constraints of a civilised society?
Because mistakes happen and malice, incompetence and laziness are all part of the human condition.

Do you really want you and yours under threat of Captain Swing because their fellow humans were under a bit of pressure for a quick result?
 
Because mistakes happen and malice, incompetence and laziness are all part of the human condition.

Do you really want you and yours under threat of Captain Swing because their fellow humans were under a bit of pressure for a quick result?
No, not at all, I do not think that any civilised human would want or demand that and I do not think that a casual acceptance for the Death Penalty should be taken.

I just wonder why, when there is 100% clear and undeniable evidence that the accused has committed the murder, are proud, unrepentant or show now remorse, that they are then treated as a human being?

I watched documentary only recently 'Murdertown', where an OAP was beaten to death the culprit was convicted with manslaughter only - was released after 5 years - then did the same offence, this time he stabbed the OAP, held him prisoner , tortured him for his pin number - then when he had this, he stabbed him 67 times, even broke the poor souls ribs while doing it.

I do believe not this person should receive the same rights as me - I have acquired my rights by being an asset and contributing, even if it's just financially, to my society.
 
I just wonder why, when there is 100% clear and undeniable evidence that the accused has committed the murder, are proud, unrepentant or show now remorse, that they are then treated as a human being?
Because there so rarely is clear and undeniable evidence and even more rarely clear and undeniable evidence that can't later be disproved.

The history of Britain's criminal justice is littered with cases where someone was wrongly convicted, even in good faith.

I guess it comes down to two things: whether you feel it's better to hang one innocent man than let a guilty one go free, or vice versa; and whether you believe that you or yours will ever wind up in the position of being that innocent man.
 
Last edited:
And how precisely do we determine this magical dividing line between ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘zero doubt whatsoever.’ Who will be be responsible for making that determination?
 
Because there so rarely is clear and undeniable evidence and even more rarely clear and undeniable evidence that can't later be disproved.

The history of Britain's criminal justice is littered with cases where someone was wrongly convicted, even in good faith.
yes, I agree , and it has sadly occurred in far too many cases... however, when there is a clear and undeniable evidence, even concerning an event sometimes witnessed by many... with evidence that is beyond any doubt whatsoever , as occurred when the poor soldier was murdered, doesn't it seems strange to use errors from the past as a reason to never want to even consider the use of capital punishment again?
 
And how precisely do we determine this magical dividing line between ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘zero doubt whatsoever.’ Who will be be responsible for making that determination?
I would suggest that the same evidence that was used to convict them of the murder/crime, would be adequate as surely it has to meet the same criteria to convict them in the first place?.... the only difference in this case is the punishment.
 
with evidence that is beyond any doubt whatsoever
There isn't any such thing, though. Witnesses can be mistaken, misled, tampered with or just starved of attention or going along with the herd. Forensics can be contaminated, mishandled or ignored. Confessions can be extorted or given through insanity or misplaced guilt. We know this can happen because it has.

The other point is the effect on juries. If I was on a jury I'd think it more reasonable to take a person's liberty away on a given strength of evidence that to take their life away on same. The key factor is that liberty can be restored, life can't.
 
There isn't any such thing, though. Witnesses can be mistaken, misled, tampered with or just starved of attention or going along with the herd. Forensics can be contaminated, mishandled or ignored. Confessions can be extorted or given through insanity or misplaced guilt. We know this can happen because it has.

The other point is the effect on juries. If I was on a jury I'd think it more reasonable to take a person's liberty away on a given strength of evidence that to take their life away on same. The key factor is that liberty can be restored, life can't.
All excellent points , but I'm not sure if Lee Rigby's Mother and family would necessary agree with you? , which is my point i.e. that when you DO HAVE 100% evidence of the murderers with absolutely no chance of getting the wrong people, why wouldn't you award capital punishment?
 
Thank you for the explanation.

Yes, that make sense that the German SS would have left before the Soviets were near.

Do you have any idea what have happened to the locally recruited SS Auxiliary troops and 'Police' that sometimes assisted in guarding the camps in Lithuania, Rumania, Estonia?

I assume that they may have just travelled the few miles back home to their homes and families?
To be honest I have no idea what the locals did. I think most of those countries were pretty anti-semitic themselves so most of their neighbours probably weren't all that bothered. Unless they did something bad enough to justify being one of the few that the authorities went after post war I'd guess that most of them just went back to their normal lives.
 
To be honest I have no idea what the locals did. I think most of those countries were pretty anti-semitic themselves so most of their neighbours probably weren't all that bothered. Unless they did something bad enough to justify being one of the few that the authorities went after post war I'd guess that most of them just went back to their normal lives.
Thank you for the reply.
 
It was not her duty to order a kill.

it was her responsibility to analyse the information at hand, weigh up the pros and cons of a course of action and then take a course of action... Or not.

other than it involving a death, I'm not really sure how you can compare any police or security force killing with a execution.
Point taken re comparing, although I don't think it was my intention initially to compare the two scenarios but to theorise on decision-making and logic in the formation of attitudes to killing, by authority, when addressing the issue of innocence.

Caecilius stated that, had the electrician been a terrorist and she not given the order, then she would or should have been disciplined and punished for failing to do her duty. I paraphrase of course. Also that I was looking at outcomes rather than the correctness of the decision.

It was in this light that the question arises - if it was her duty/responsibility to act, based on the available info, his guilt or innocence is immaterial, just an embuggerance due to reality. So we're back to the decision - if she had, for whatever reason, not given the order, would or should she be equally liable, even though the chap turned out to be innocent?

You say it was not her duty and my logic, as explained above, would agree. But my logic also tells me that if she was duty bound to order the kill and did not, then even given that he was innocent, she should have been told that she should have killed him anyway, given the info that she had.

I know that it seems a bit of a stupid idea but it's just the way my brain works. It should be noted that I'm not arguing for a particular point of view and don't seek to persuade, I'm just sort of thinkin' aloud.
 
I'm not quite sure that I understand that sentiment?

If a child molester raped and then murdered a child or someone hacked a frail senior citizen to death, why would they be entitled to or afforded the same rights as me , who works hard, causes no issues and exists under the constraints of a civilised society?
Laws in general seek to order society. Fairly. So everybody can seek redress/justice.

Human rights protect the individual from authority, which has the means to enforce anything. Human rights then, are the minimum standard of treatment that should apply to everybody, just for being human, and should be inalienable, as if imbued by nature or god. (Not sure 'imbued' is the right word but it's the only one I can think of that seems cromulent)
 
It was in this light that the question arises - if it was her duty/responsibility to act, based on the available info, his guilt or innocence is immaterial, just an embuggerance due to reality. So we're back to the decision - if she had, for whatever reason, not given the order, would or should she be equally liable, even though the chap turned out to be innocent?

You say it was not her duty and my logic, as explained above, would agree. But my logic also tells me that if she was duty bound to order the kill and did not, then even given that he was innocent, she should have been told that she should have killed him anyway, given the info that she had.
It was one of those situations where if you get it right you are a hero, wrong and a zero.
The gross mistake was afterwards when the Met tried to say it was not important implying this was because he was black and of no importance.
It is interesting that the day (or next) after Sir Ian Blair finally admitted that they had killed an innocent man would kill again if necessary Gerry Adams ordered all ASU's to disarm and cease all operations immediately.
So quite possibly some good came out of the tragedy.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top