Fao advocating the death penalty in the UK

FMTTM and it’s looney lefties… so quick to jump to captital punishment and the death penalty!

Killing is wrong.
 
Nero said:
He wouldn’t have even gone to court if DNA evidence was available in 2003.
Click to expand...
There was other evidence that showed how unreliable the case was, but this was withheld by the prosecution. There is still the worry that things will not be fully disclosed as the prosecution have decided that person they have caught is guilty.
 
Laughing said:
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.
Click to expand...
Most dna, in which this man was freed, is more than 100%. It’s somewhere like 1 in a billion (which is fairly strong evidence). Eyewitness alone is very rarely relied upon alone and when the eyewitness, unconnected to victim or defendant, provides similar account to victim then rightly so, does carry weight.
Brain is a complex thing and process of information is different for all so unlikely that somebody every could remember everything
 
Nero said:
He wouldn’t have even gone to court if DNA evidence was available in 2003.
Click to expand...
DNA evidence was used well before this in the UK. 1987 I think was the first time.

However that was not the point face fuzz made. It was that with advances in a, b, c we can be sure enough to murder a prisoner. We can't.

And whilst on the subject of DNA it's as unreliable now as its always been and can and has been used to wrongly convict people. It's so easily transferable.

Scientific advances used to argue for the death penalty is b***ks.
 
Facefuzz said:
Most dna, in which this man was freed, is more than 100%. It’s somewhere like 1 in a billion (which is fairly strong evidence). Eyewitness alone is very rarely relied upon alone and when the eyewitness, unconnected to victim or defendant, provides similar account to victim then rightly so, does carry weight.
Brain is a complex thing and process of information is different for all so unlikely that somebody every could remember everything
Click to expand...
b***ks again I am afraid. DNA is transferable and my DNA can end up somewhere I have never been.

I can't be bothered to explain why eyewitness testimony is nonsense again. It is interesting that on the case being discussed the victims own testimony was disregarded under instruction because it didn't suite the prosecutions case.
 
junos_boots said:
There was other evidence that showed how unreliable the case was, but this was withheld by the prosecution. There is still the worry that things will not be fully disclosed as the prosecution have decided that person they have caught is guilty.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed but only count 1 and 2 were accepted by the Appeal Court. DNA and photographic evidence that went against evidence from the Doctor.
 
Laughing said:
DNA evidence was used well before this in the UK. 1987 I think was the first time.

However that was not the point face fuzz made. It was that with advances in a, b, c we can be sure enough to murder a prisoner. We can't.

And whilst on the subject of DNA it's as unreliable now as its always been and can and has been used to wrongly convict people. It's so easily transferable.

Scientific advances used to argue for the death penalty is b***ks.
Click to expand...
it’s semen inside a vagina.
It’s not a speck of saliva or a fingerprint on a rusty screwdriver found in the park.
 
Laughing said:
DNA evidence was used well before this in the UK. 1987 I think was the first time.

However that was not the point face fuzz made. It was that with advances in a, b, c we can be sure enough to murder a prisoner. We can't.

And whilst on the subject of DNA it's as unreliable now as its always been and can and has been used to wrongly convict people. It's so easily transferable.

Scientific advances used to argue for the death penalty is b***ks.
Click to expand...
I see your point. I’m probably off topic a bit as I’m not making a case for the death penalty. Just showing how and why Malkinson was acquitted.
 
Laughing said:
b***ks again I am afraid. DNA is transferable and my DNA can end up somewhere I have never been.

I can't be bothered to explain why eyewitness testimony is nonsense again. It is interesting that on the case being discussed the victims own testimony was disregarded under instruction because it didn't suite the prosecutions case.
Click to expand...
The defence would have to agree it could be disregarded. If it suited the defence they’d have it in.
Go to crown court and watch a trial. You will be surprised by the hurdles to cross for a conviction. You can sit in and listen to the agreed facts, judges direction etc
 
Laughing said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh absolutely. A judge would never give a percentage, but if pushed on it and outside a trial lawyers would give it as 99% as a way of explaining it in layman's terms (albeit heavily caveated of course).
 
My mate sat on a rape trial not long ago.
Vulnerable victim turned up.
Defendant arrived with bad character etc.
He said large majority of jury had a strong, really strong belief that it happened but judge sent them out with directions of , unless your are 100% sure then you must not convict.
There’s a rapist on the loose.
 
Facefuzz said:
it’s semen inside a vagina.
It’s not a speck of saliva or a fingerprint on a rusty screwdriver found in the park.
Click to expand...
Again not what I called you out for Facefuzz. You want the death penalty because you believe that with scientific advances we can be sure of guilt. We can't.

What I can be sure of is that anyone wanting state sanctioned murder are no different to any other murderer. Their moral compass is completely broken. What does surprise me is the hypocrisy that death penalty advocates completely miss.
 
Laughing said:
They may deserve to die, we shouldn't be murdering them though.
Click to expand...
We'll simply disagree then. But please get the facts right.

I have no problem with the lawful killing of child killers.

Murder. "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"

Lawful killing is not murder.
 
zzzzz said:
We'll simply disagree then. But please get the facts right.

I have no problem with the lawful killing of child killers.

Murder. "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another"

Lawful killing is not murder.
Click to expand...
Call it what you want. It's murder and a legislative bill doesn't change that. But, let's play your game for a minute. If the state kill someone who is innocent, is that murder or just a whoopsy.
 
Laughing said:
What I can be sure of is that anyone wanting state sanctioned murder are no different to any other murderer.
Click to expand...
What? Taking the life of a murderer who is going to die as punishment is the same as me sticking a steak knife in our lass 50 times because she has an affair.
I see the similarities in motivation and the parallel between the 2 killings
 
Laughing said:
Call it what you want. It's murder and a legislative bill doesn't change that. But, let's play your game for a minute. If the state kill someone who is innocent, is that murder or just a whoopsy.
Click to expand...
Death penalty would have caveats.
Beyond any doubt whatsoever.
Caught on cctv for example or a weight of evidence from forensic and digital
 
Facefuzz said:
What? Taking the life of a murderer who is going to die as punishment is the same as me sticking a steak knife in our lass 50 times because she has an affair.
I see the similarities in motivation and the parallel between the 2 killings
Click to expand...
You want to kill someone as vengence, it has nothing to do with justice. I assume you also disagree with the human rights act too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top