Fao advocating the death penalty in the UK
- Thread starter Jedi boro
- Start date
1finny
Well-known member
WindyNook
Well-known member
Am cat sitting at my sons house burgers have been up sInce six!
bit early for philosophy corner….
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Fair enough, I still can’t imagine it’s cheap though. There is often assumption that bumping someone off is cheaper than keeping them in prison for 30 years, and it may be, but it isn’t just a case of taking them to the nearest cliff and pushing them off is it.
We’re going back years. Things have changed. PACE, more cctv, progression in forensic science and digital science.
That case would not happen today.
Death wouldn’t be for rapists so I haven’t. It would be for murderers.
I wouldn’t have given him the opportunity, to decide, to be in control of when.
But it was the correct outcome and saves us some money whilst hopefully giving the victims families some solace
Nero
Well-known member
Just reading through the Appeal Court Judgement:
The main basis for appeal was DNA evidence that wasn’t available at the time. If techniques were available in 2003 the prosecution wouldn’t have even pushed the case against him.
Another big factor was the memory of the victim cutting the attackers face. She remember using her left hand to do so, but during the trial the prosecution used a statement from Dr Anderson stating the broken finger nail was on the right hand.
Due to Dr’s statement the judge directed to Jury to consider whether the victim had remembered correctly. She had already said causing a cut was he last memory before being choked unconscious.
The Jury discounted the cut based on their belief the victim has misremembered and did so on the statement of Dr C.
The photos shown in the court were only of the victims body and face. Photos of the left hand showing the finger nail were not produced.
The main basis for appeal was DNA evidence that wasn’t available at the time. If techniques were available in 2003 the prosecution wouldn’t have even pushed the case against him.
Another big factor was the memory of the victim cutting the attackers face. She remember using her left hand to do so, but during the trial the prosecution used a statement from Dr Anderson stating the broken finger nail was on the right hand.
Due to Dr’s statement the judge directed to Jury to consider whether the victim had remembered correctly. She had already said causing a cut was he last memory before being choked unconscious.
The Jury discounted the cut based on their belief the victim has misremembered and did so on the statement of Dr C.
The photos shown in the court were only of the victims body and face. Photos of the left hand showing the finger nail were not produced.
Last edited:
The judge and barrister will say, before the jury retire, you MUST be beyond all doubt if you concict. Ie 100%. Which is actually why a lot of guilty people get off
Laughing
Well-known member
Well that's b***ks.
Jedi boro
Well-known member
Another myth as the death penalty is incredibly expensive as well due to the mandatory appeals process plus there’s the added factor that jurors might be more reluctant to vote guilty if it meant death. Think about that
Why.
He got freed after progression in DNA which wasn’t available at the time.
You can’t possibly think that digital technology hasn’t progressed, every other house has cctv, all mobile phones are full of apps, more people have digital footprint, cars are easy track able.
He wouldn’t have been charged today.
Why do you think it’s b***ks laughing
Fair point, it’s a big burden to put on a jury
festa5
Well-known member
beyond all "reasonable" doubt. So maybe 99%+ certain. But that's splitting hairs really. Its also dependent on the jury understanding the principle and/or listening to the judge. They don't always.
Yes lots of guilty people do get off in crown court (burden of proof in magistrates court for lesser offences isn't as high) for that reason. Doesn't mean everyone convicted is definitely guilty though. Although the vast majority are.
Laughing
Well-known member
Because he may well have still been found guilty. Some things haven't and will never change. The unreliability of eye witness accounts and fingerprint evidence that jurors tend to believe it's 100%. It isn't. In fact eye witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence there is yet jurors put way too much credence on it.
Scientific improvements help, they don't stop wrongful convicting or corrupt or incompetent actors.
Nero
Well-known member
He wouldn’t have even gone to court if DNA evidence was available in 2003.
Laughing
Well-known member
Hi festa. Reasonable doubt has 2 definitions. The one used most often is: a reasonable person could only conclude guilt, or there is no other reasonable explanation for the evidence. The second definition that rarely gets explained to juries is that if there are 2 explanations for a fact that are equally plausible the jury must believe the one explanation that favours the defendant.
I am not sure either of these are understood or even explained to a jury adequately.
Not sure you can put a % on the doubt allowed though.
However reasonable doubt, generally isn't the issue. Jurors bias may well be a much bigger factor.