An apolgy for being hung by the state

Facefuzz said:
They don’t though.

none of that applies to the ‘type’ of person who would get the death penalty as they don’t need educating, rehabilitating etc. they’re never getting out.

We would have the right to take away life if bound in law as they would ultimately, as a punishment for crime committed, fore go their right to life.

Again, it would be for cases talked about with a closed book.
Click to expand...
I know, I was just replying to 1finny's post on reform.

Edit: Again though, I still don't think any of us have the right to take another person's life, no matter what the circumstances.
 
Facefuzz said:
I don’t feel it is draconian finny. Remember that the right to justice is free in this country. Prison itself is a holiday with gym time, tvs, fairly comfy beds, flushing toilets and wash facilities, jobs to earn money, a shop to spend the money in, health and dental care, appeals, visits from friends and families and courses etc. most prisoners actually have a telephone in their cell.
That’s not draconian when compared to other countries, even within Europe.
Click to expand...
Facefuzz please go and visit a prison. They are very much not as you describe.
 
The prosecution is only concerned with winning its case, it doesn't care about the truth. Nothing has changed or will change in that respect. The future (or even the present) is even scarier if you've watched The Capture on BBC.
 
kuepper said:
The prosecution is only concerned with winning its case, it doesn't care about the truth. Nothing has changed or will change in that respect. The future (or even the present) is even scarier if you've watched The Capture on BBC.
Click to expand...
The prosecution is concerned with winning its case. It would be silly otherwise. I’m fairly sure that the defence are concerned with winning their case which is even more frightening would you not agree? That you could stand and defend Huntley or provide mitigation for him.
The good thing is that there is a duty to collect and disclose all material which supports the prosecution case or assists the defence.
We then have a judge who makes sure all is above board and heard in a fair setting before a jury of impartial people selected at random make a decision, in most cases unanimously.
 
I've been in a couple (through work rather than social malpractice) and much as I used to enjoy a visit to the gym it's not great after a world of 23 hour lockdowns, limited social access, endemic bullying and abuse, isolation from family and friends, no access to telephones (unless smuggled in by bigger criminals who want repayment). They are totally grim places. Especially the older ones.
 
rkangel said:
I've been in a couple (through work rather than social malpractice) and much as I used to enjoy a visit to the gym it's not great after a world of 23 hour lockdowns, limited social access, endemic bullying and abuse, isolation from family and friends, no access to telephones (unless smuggled in by bigger criminals who want repayment). They are totally grim places. Especially the older ones.
Click to expand...
I’d agree that they are fairly grim places which you must agree that they should be.
Sounds like I have visited in similar circumstances to you.
I don’t dispute the bullying and abuse and disagree with that side. You are there as punishment and not to be punished.
With regard to being isolated from family and friends I’d argue that that is the part I agree with most and potentially the biggest deterrent for those that can be deterred.
They do have phones, at minimum on the wing but become more common in cells. They are landlines with pre authorised numbers. If you have credit then you can use the phone as much as you want, similar to the contract I have with my telephone provider.
 
Alex-The-Kid said:
As a deterrent, people who commit these kind of abhorrent crimes should as a bare minimum live in absolute squalor, in isolation and should be given absolutely nothing apart from 3 square meals, a cold shower and a mattress.
Click to expand...
And, ironically, I infringe their human rights.

I don't think you should have any rights if you commit murder.
 
As someone who's spent a career in and around the criminal justice system, including a great many murder investigations, the death penalty would be a hugely regressive step.

Prison should be a deterrent, but also should seek to rehabilitate, which is the age old debate isn't it.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
As someone who's spent a career in and around the criminal justice system, including a great many murder investigations, the death penalty would be a hugely regressive step.

Prison should be a deterrent, but also should seek to rehabilitate, which is the age old debate isn't it.
Click to expand...
I right with similar background Jonny.
I’m on the other side and think that it would be progressive. Like I say, my decision is based on the fact that some monsters cannot be rehabilitated and it is not worth the risk to the innocent society for the needs, rights and wants of a convicted killer.
 
Norman_Conquest said:
I know, I was just replying to 1finny's post on reform.

Edit: Again though, I still don't think any of us have the right to take another person's life, no matter what the circumstances.
Click to expand...
Totally agree Norman, I don't think anyone has that right.
 
Facefuzz said:
I right with similar background Jonny.
I’m on the other side and think that it would be progressive. Like I say, my decision is based on the fact that some monsters cannot be rehabilitated and it is not worth the risk to the innocent society for the needs, rights and wants of a convicted killer.
Click to expand...
But how do you decide who receives the death penalty and who doesn't?

Even putting aside the ethical issues, it would be impossible to implement without innocent people being killed at the hands of the state.

Fundamtally though, any progressive society should not legalise the taking of a life.
 
Facefuzz said:
The prosecution is concerned with winning its case. It would be silly otherwise. I’m fairly sure that the defence are concerned with winning their case which is even more frightening would you not agree? That you could stand and defend Huntley or provide mitigation for him.
The good thing is that there is a duty to collect and disclose all material which supports the prosecution case or assists the defence.
We then have a judge who makes sure all is above board and heard in a fair setting before a jury of impartial people selected at random make a decision, in most cases unanimously.
Click to expand...

If someone is not guilty of course the defence should be concerned with winning their case, why is that frightening, do you think everyone charged with an offence is guilty? There are so many examples of cases that reveal shortcomings in the system you seem to think works so well, the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 to name but 2 . Many people have had years of their lives taken away because of lies and falsified evidence. At least they weren't hung.
 
kuepper said:
If someone is not guilty of course the defence should be concerned with winning their case, why is that frightening, do you think everyone charged with an offence is guilty? There are so many examples of cases that reveal shortcomings in the system you seem to think works so well, the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 to name but 2 . Many people have had years of their lives taken away because of lies and falsified evidence. At least they weren't hung.
Click to expand...
Those cases were both in the 70’s. See the earlier posts regard my view of cases post 2000.
If jonny has insight into murder cases I’m sure he’d agree that those shortcomings in cases have all but not been ironed out but simply don’t exist anymore.
The changes in pace and disclosure along with advances in evidence mean that the chance of that happening again simply don’t exist.
The cps literally only want bankers at court.
If your there then there is already overwhelming evidence against you.
The defending criminals is frightening quote was toward the likes of Huntley. By all means give him a fair trial and listen to the evidence but how can you mount a ‘defence’ case which is ultimately to get him off.
Obviously people are untitled to legal advice and I think that is different to actually defending them
 
Facefuzz said:
Those cases were both in the 70’s. See the earlier posts regard my view of cases post 2000.
If jonny has insight into murder cases I’m sure he’d agree that those shortcomings in cases have all but not been ironed out but simply don’t exist anymore.
The changes in pace and disclosure along with advances in evidence mean that the chance of that happening again simply don’t exist.
The cps literally only want bankers at court.
If your there then there is already overwhelming evidence against you.
The defending criminals is frightening quote was toward the likes of Huntley. By all means give him a fair trial and listen to the evidence but how can you mount a ‘defence’ case which is ultimately to get him off.
Obviously people are untitled to legal advice and I think that is different to actually defending them
Click to expand...
I'm actually more cautious in terms of whether I think there is a possibly for a miscarriage of justice within the present day criminal justice system, for the most serious cases at least, which would obviously include homicide.

The CPS are always more likely to take a murder case to trial due to its seriousness and it follows therefore that miscarriages could happen.

Having said that the occasions where malpractice and corruption, which seemed to litter the 70's and 80's are so unlikely in the present day, it's almost negligible.

The criminal justice system is far from perfect in this country, especially where we rely on an adversarial process and trial by jury, rather than an inquisitorial process.
 
Jonny Ingbar said:
I'm actually more cautious in terms of whether I think there is a possibly for a miscarriage of justice within the present day criminal justice system, for the most serious cases at least, which would obviously include homicide.

The CPS are always more likely to take a murder case to trial due to its seriousness and it follows therefore that miscarriages could happen.

Having said that the occasions where malpractice and corruption, which seemed to litter the 70's and 80's are so unlikely in the present day, it's almost negligible.

The criminal justice system is far from perfect in this country, especially where we rely on an adversarial process and trial by jury, rather than an inquisitorial process.
Click to expand...
They are more likely to take a murder case to trial due to seriousness (I think that’s as much to do with how much the court can physically deal with so percentage wise more murders will go to trial than say burglaries) but it still relies on cps believing, with a very high threshold, that the right person is charged.
Malpractice and corruption, although still in existence in some form, are difficult to fail a case as they go through so many gate keepers.
Adversarial process I think in theory is fairer as the judge and jury rely on what is presented. The problem with that system is how it is presented and there are some fantastic barristers in cleveland, some not as good. Some are a treat to watch.
 
Smoginexile said:
I can't bring myself to agree with the death penalty.
But I feel such a hypocrite for typing that.
I remember how Ian Brady taunted the family of his victim by doing just enough to suggest he may "remember" where their loved one is.
I hate that my taxes payed for him to do that for decades until he died.
If I had access to the lever with someone like him I'm not sure I could resist.
But I still think it's not right to risk killing an innocent when we get it wrong.
Click to expand...
The good - after the murders which were obviously horrific - is that Hindley was desperate to get out, but served the full sentence. ie until death
 
The Cardiff 3 (or 5) were found guilty of the murder if Lynette White. They were freed after a year or so - but the police said they weren't looking for anyone else. Later different police investigations proved there was no way they should have been charged. The real killer was later found by DNA. One of the Cardiff 3 was so scared of the police he took a DNA test at his solicitors - which they escorted to the lab before his innocence was proved.
It's still on Channel 5 - Murder Of Lynette White
 
The question you have to ask is - How would you feel laid on the gurney, about to have a needle inserted into your arm that will ultimately stop your heart, and you know 100% that you did not commit the murder you are now going to lose your life for?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top