Why Britain needs to re-instate the death penalty

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.
Unless I am being epically thick (possible) your response hasn’t actually answered my question.
 
Unless I am being epically thick (possible) your response hasn’t actually answered my question.
The replies on this site are inspired and a joy.

What I mean to explain is that it's my understanding that If the evidence was enough to convict the person of murder, then it must follow that it is only the punishment we are debating.
 
The replies on this site are inspired and a joy.

What I mean to explain is that it's my understanding that If the evidence was enough to convict the person of murder, then it must follow that it is only the punishment we are debating.
Well it wasn't for some silly SJW's on a plane a while ago.
And that is a large part of the problem.
 
The replies on this site are inspired and a joy.

What I mean to explain is that it's my understanding that If the evidence was enough to convict the person of murder, then it must follow that it is only the punishment we are debating.
But we have had numerous cases where murder convictions have been overturned. This is when you get people on here saying we should only hang people when it’s totally 100%, no doubt whatsoever.

Hence my question, we ‘only’ convict on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. That is NOT the same as saying that there is absolutely no possibility, however small, that doubt exists as to the defendants guilt.
 
But we have had numerous cases where murder convictions have been overturned. This is when you get people on here saying we should only hang people when it’s totally 100%, no doubt whatsoever.

Hence my question, we ‘only’ convict on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. That is NOT the same as saying that there is absolutely no possibility, however small, that doubt exists as to the defendants guilt.

Yes, all agreed, and they were overturned because the method of proving guilt at the time was not fool proof, and people, even in the legal profession lie or distort evidence, but in the case of Lee Rigby's killers there was no doubt of who committed this murder.

Maybe we could use capital punishment ONLY when there is not a single possibility of a wrongful conviction?
 

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes, all agreed, and they were overturned because the method of proving guilt at the time was not fool proof, and people, even in the legal profession lie or distort evidence, but in the case of Lee Rigby's killers there was no doubt of who committed this murder.

Maybe we could use capital punishment ONLY when there is not a single possibility of a wrongful conviction?
But that not a single possibility has to be defined and codified in law in a manner that provides completely unambiguous direction to the judges presiding over a trial. Given the number of ****-ups parliament has voted through in the last 20ish years since I've been vaguely paying attention I'm dead against them even attempting it.
 
But that not a single possibility has to be defined and codified in law in a manner that provides completely unambiguous direction to the judges presiding over a trial. Given the number of ****-ups parliament has voted through in the last 20ish years since I've been vaguely paying attention I'm dead against them even attempting it.
True, until it happens to them or their families?
 
Maybe we could use capital punishment ONLY when there is not a single possibility of a wrongful conviction?
That's as good as saying 'never use capital punishment.' There will never be a case where there's not a single possibility of a wrongful conviction.
 
That's as good as saying 'never use capital punishment.' There will never be a case where there's not a single possibility of a wrongful conviction.

Eh? I have to admit that I do not understand your above statement as we saw Lee Rigby's killers in full Technicolour, they admitted it, Police Officers witnessed it , passer-by's witnessed it - and people recorded the incident.

Are you saying that there is possibility that they are innocent of this murder?

I feel that you are one of those that I was warned of ;-)
 
Last edited:

Trans-sane

LE
Book Reviewer
True, until it happens to them or their families?
If the members of the commons then try and put legislation through to bring back the death penalty after the murder of one.of their families, it will and a rushed through and poorly constructed bodge job and therefore even less likely to receive my support as a voter.

As.for the Rigby murder, it is remotely possible that there is an undiscovered mitigation factor such as blackmail or threat against a loved one. It's remote but the.possibility is there never then less. Besides in that case the peeps WANTED to be killed. They would be martyrs to the cause! Therefore letting them rot in jug until they die or natural causes is a better outcome if you are into the societal retribution philosophy.
 
If the members of the commons then try and put legislation through to bring back the death penalty after the murder of one.of their families, it will and a rushed through and poorly constructed bodge job and therefore even less likely to receive my support as a voter.

As for the Rigby murder, it is remotely possible that there is an undiscovered mitigation factor such as blackmail or threat against a loved one. It's remote , but the possibility is there never then less.

Besides in that case the peeps WANTED to be killed. They would be martyrs to the cause! Therefore letting them rot in jug until they die or natural causes is a better outcome if you are into the societal retribution philosophy.

.....but not if you are his Parent, relative or friend?

I am really trying to see your interpretation of balance re this and even can semi agree to some of it such as the fabled far off remote possibility of mitigation, but I think that we have a very different view to this. ..... and quite frankly , yours are far more amusing than mine.

Thank you...... re far off possibility, by the above underlined statement , pretty much everything could be a far off possibility in the Rigby case.

or it could be total nonsense and a red herring, or a very weak form of defence complete with 'I can't tell you their names/organisation as I'm scared what they will do to my family' because whatever the reason, it will not change the fact that person A killed/murdered, person B
 
Last edited:
Eh? I have to admit that I do not understand your above statement as we saw Lee Rigby's killers in full Technicolour, they admitted it, Police Officers witnessed it , passer-by's witnessed it - and people recorded the incident.

Are you saying that there is possibility that they are innocent of this murder?
Of course there is, there always will be, that's the point.

We saw film purporting to be Lee Rigby's killers in full Technicolour in an era where CGI can be made to a high appearance of reality.

We heard Police Officers state that they witnessed it when we have several instances of wrongful convictions supported by police statements.

We are told that passers-by witnessed it when witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Juries will have no firsthand knowledge of the crimes they try and go only on what they are told, underpinned by the assumption that what they are told is accurate. Since what they are told will always have the possibility -however remote - of being inaccurate, there's no such thing as convicting beyond all possibility of error.

That's not dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin navel gazing, in my lifetime I've seen men fitted up or convicted in error for crimes they would have swung for and where everyone at the time was convinced beyond doubt they'd committed.
 
.....but not if you are his Parent, relative or friend?

I am really trying to see your interpretation of balance re this and even can semi agree to some of it such as the fabled far off remote possibility of mitigation, but I think that we have a very different view to this. ..... and quite frankly , yours are far more amusing than mine.

Thank you...... re far off possibility, by the above underlined statement , pretty much everything could be a far off possibility in the Rigby case.

or it could be total nonsense and a red herring, or a very weak form of defence complete with 'I can't tell you their names/organisation as I'm scared what they will do to my family' because whatever the reason, it will not change the fact that person A killed/murdered, person B
Parents, relatives and friends should not have a hand in punishment or sentencing if you want a consistent and balanced judicial system. That is why we have the rule of law in the first place.
 
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?
All prior experience of tinkering with capital punishment to make it more specific has always resulted in anomalies arising that brought it into disrepute and hastened abolition. I don't see how a proposal on standard of proof will be any different. There will inevitably be a case where a horrifying crime will be less certain than a less horrible crime and the more evil criminal will live and the less evil die. This is exactly the result of creating the distinction between Capital and Non-capital murder in the '50's.
 
Last edited:
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.
Well for a start he wasn't black, The IRA had been in ceasefire since 1997 and had been engaged in a disarmament process since 2000. Linkage between these events is extremely unlikely
 
Of course there is, there always will be, that's the point.

We saw film purporting to be Lee Rigby's killers in full Technicolour in an era where CGI can be made to a high appearance of reality.

We heard Police Officers state that they witnessed it when we have several instances of wrongful convictions supported by police statements.

We are told that passers-by witnessed it when witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Juries will have no firsthand knowledge of the crimes they try and go only on what they are told, underpinned by the assumption that what they are told is accurate. Since what they are told will always have the possibility -however remote - of being inaccurate, there's no such thing as convicting beyond all possibility of error.

That's not dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin navel gazing, in my lifetime I've seen men fitted up or convicted in error for crimes they would have swung for and where everyone at the time was convinced beyond doubt they'd committed.
WTF!! Are you seriously suggesting that the film concerning the events around LR's Killers could have been enhanced/changed by CGI?..... in that case, you will never beleive anything in your life unless you see it yourself and then what? - the government may have slipped something into your food/drink and then given you drugs to create false memory syndrome or similar?

Just give them the information eh?

 
WTF!! Are you seriously suggesting that the film concerning the events around LR's Killers could have been enhanced/changed by CGI?
No, you turps-nudging shambles you.
 
No, you turps-nudging shambles you.
Oh!, So you didn't really mean the the 'purporting' comment about the LR murder, Post 613, where you implied that the clips of it showing the Killers may have been altered?

Cheers for clearIng that up SAC.

purport
verb
gerund or present participle: purporting
/pəˈpɔːt/
  1. appear to be or do something, especially falsely.
    "she is not the person she purports to be"
    synonyms:claim, lay claim, profess, pretend; More




 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Despite receiving the maximum 21 year sentence, Norwegian law allows this to be extended 5 years at a time if he still poses a risk.
It’s not too wild to hazard a guess that his 5 year terms will continually get extended until he really does not pose a risk.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top