Fao advocating the death penalty in the UK

Laughing said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not as vengeance. Vengeance will break a person.
As a punishment, as a deterrent, as justice for the victim family (who may want vengeance)
 
Facefuzz said:
Not as vengeance. Vengeance will break a person.
As a punishment, as a deterrent, as justice for the victim family (who may want vengeance)
Click to expand...
Lets take those one at a time.

As a punishment: Well you might reasonably argue this. Of course it tramples all over the Human Rights Act of 1998, which, as I alluded to, you clearly disagree with. Let's add to that that it is an irreversible punishment. There is no such thing as guilty beyond any doubt, and how do you apply that. A confession, for example, cctv, that's laughable, fingerprint evidence, again laughable.
As a deterrent: Any evidence it acts as a deterrent? Countries that have a death penalty don't have less murder. State by state in the USA there is no differrence between those that use the death penalty and those that don't.
Justice for the family: You answered this yourself, some families may want the death penalty, but its for vengance, not justice.

The only possible argument that holds any water, for the death penalty, is that they cannot re-commit. I have no problem with a life served in prison. This achieves the same without murdering people.
 
Nero said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wait on a sec, that gives the impression there was evidence that suggested he may have been guilty that DNA would have disproved, the actual lack of evidence is staggering, as this that I've obviously copied and pasted proves.

"Malkinson was identified by the victim in a identity parade line-up, despite several key details not matching with the description of the perpetrator. For example, she described the attacker as being 3 inches shorter than Malkinson, with a hairless chest and no tattoos. Malkinson had chest hair and prominent tattoos on his forearms. She also said the attacker would have a "deep scratch" to his face, since she'd scratched him so hard she had broken one of her fingernails. Malkinson was seen at work the next day with no scratch to his face. He also didn't have the Bolton accent the victim said the attacker had. [3]

There was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime at the time.[7]"

The Police and prosecution services didn't charge him because they were unfortunate not to have the required advancements in DNA, they charged him because they were at best incompetent at worst corrupt.
 
Facefuzz said:
Death penalty would have caveats.
Beyond any doubt whatsoever.
Click to expand...

This another myth that if we had the death penalty then we make doubly sure they were guilty. The fact is it would be the same as it is now same judges same courts same jurors.

We don’t convict the innocent now intentionally so why would it change
 
The Card Cheat said:
Wait on a sec, that gives the impression there was evidence that suggested he may have been guilty that DNA would have disproved, the actual lack of evidence is staggering, as this that I've obviously copied and pasted proves.

"Malkinson was identified by the victim in a identity parade line-up, despite several key details not matching with the description of the perpetrator. For example, she described the attacker as being 3 inches shorter than Malkinson, with a hairless chest and no tattoos. Malkinson had chest hair and prominent tattoos on his forearms. She also said the attacker would have a "deep scratch" to his face, since she'd scratched him so hard she had broken one of her fingernails. Malkinson was seen at work the next day with no scratch to his face. He also didn't have the Bolton accent the victim said the attacker had. [3]

There was no DNA evidence linking him to the crime at the time.[7]"

The Police and prosecution services didn't charge him because they were unfortunate not to have the required advancements in DNA, they charged him because they were at best incompetent at worst corrupt.
Click to expand...
Definitely a load of bias thinking going on and probably massive incompetence too.

He was identified by three people, so it’s clear that’s what the CPS based their case on. That is despite one person picking someone else then changing their mind. The third person identified him weeks later. This after information has been in the media about the attacker including and e-fit.
 
Nero said:
Definitely a load of bias thinking going on and probably massive incompetence too.

He was identified by three people, so it’s clear that’s what the CPS based their case on. That is despite one person picking someone else then changing their mind. The third person identified him weeks later. This after information has been in the media about the attacker including and e-fit.
Click to expand...
The case really demonstrated why eye witness testimony, particularly when identifying someone is flawed. We are all rubbish at it, outside of those we know and see regularly.
 
Laughing said:
Lets take those one at a time.

As a punishment: Well you might reasonably argue this. Of course it tramples all over the Human Rights Act of 1998, which, as I alluded to, you clearly disagree with. Let's add to that that it is an irreversible punishment. There is no such thing as guilty beyond any doubt, and how do you apply that. A confession, for example, cctv, that's laughable, fingerprint evidence, again laughable.
As a deterrent: Any evidence it acts as a deterrent? Countries that have a death penalty don't have less murder. State by state in the USA there is no differrence between those that use the death penalty and those that don't.
Justice for the family: You answered this yourself, some families may want the death penalty, but its for vengance, not justice.

The only possible argument that holds any water, for the death penalty, is that they cannot re-commit. I have no problem with a life served in prison. This achieves the same without murdering people.
Click to expand...
A confession, cctv and fingerprints are laughable?
A picture paints a thousand words.
Cctv does not lie.
Fingerprints do not lie. They may end up on a moveable object but they don’t lie. They can’t be transferred from one object to another by touch.
Dna doesn’t lie. A matched profile is a billion to 1. They seperate strands, identify you by male family members and aren’t far off being able to clone from it.
Witness testimony is treat with caution and taken in conjunction with everything else.
 
Facefuzz said:
A confession, cctv and fingerprints are laughable?
A picture paints a thousand words.
Cctv does not lie.
Fingerprints do not lie. They may end up on a moveable object but they don’t lie. They can’t be transferred from one object to another by touch.
Dna doesn’t lie. A matched profile is a billion to 1. They seperate strands, identify you by male family members and aren’t far off being able to clone from it.
Witness testimony is treat with caution and taken in conjunction with everything else.
Click to expand...
You really don't know much about evidence do you.

False confessions are well known to happen, the police are allowed to lie in this and other countries to get a confession. It happens, let's not pretend otherwise.

Fingerprints. You don't have to have a complete match, and complete matches are pretty much unheard of at trial. As a general rule a fingerprint used at trial will match 1 in a hundred people. Not really the definitive piece of evidence you think it to be, is it?

CCTV can be manipulated, it's generally from a distance and is wholly unreliable. We are very close to being able to manipulate high definition digital recordings so the edits are undetectable. That's why ot's laughable.

You clearly have an agenda, you want the death penalty and, it seems you aren't really capable of even trying to understand why we would execute the wrong people, not often, but it would happen and does happen in countries that have the death penalty.

This is the main reason why state sanctioned murder is wrong. There are moral questions to be answered, of course, but I really am not going to get into that side of the argument with someone who believes killing someone who is defenceless is OK.
 
Laughing said:
You really don't know much about evidence do you.

False confessions are well known to happen, the police are allowed to lie in this and other countries to get a confession. It happens, let's not pretend otherwise.

Fingerprints. You don't have to have a complete match, and complete matches are pretty much unheard of at trial. As a general rule a fingerprint used at trial will match 1 in a hundred people. Not really the definitive piece of evidence you think it to be, is it?

CCTV can be manipulated, it's generally from a distance and is wholly unreliable. We are very close to being able to manipulate high definition digital recordings so the edits are undetectable. That's why ot's laughable.

You clearly have an agenda, you want the death penalty and, it seems you aren't really capable of even trying to understand why we would execute the wrong people, not often, but it would happen and does happen in countries that have the death penalty.

This is the main reason why state sanctioned murder is wrong. There are moral questions to be answered, of course, but I really am not going to get into that side of the argument with someone who believes killing someone who is defenceless is OK.
Click to expand...
Fingerprints matching 100 people.
Fake cctv
Police lying on interviews (which are recorded audio and visually then turned to transcripts for court) to get confessions

You have the agenda laughing. Discrediting the criminal justice system and raising discontent with the police force.
 
Facefuzz said:
Fingerprints matching 100 people.
Fake cctv
Police lying on interviews (which are recorded audio and visually then turned to transcripts for court) to get confessions

You have the agenda laughing
Click to expand...
As I said you know absoloutely nothing about evidence.

The police cannot lie about evidence they do not have, nor that a co-arrestee has confessed if they haven't. They can lie about everything else.

Fingerprints are matched on only 16 points, out of hundreds, sometimes less. 12-16 points is not uncommon.

CCTV, please I shouldn't even have to defend that comment.

Knock yourself out, I won't be bothering with you again on this conversation. You made your thoughts clear and so did I.
 
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
Click to expand...

Firstly, there’s no such thing as more than 100% when talking about probability. I think you’re getting confused by the 1 in a billion claim. Even if we take that at face value (which we shouldn’t) it would equate to 99.9999999%.

Secondly, the 1 in a billion claim about DNA evidence is completely misleading. So much so that, I believe, judges are no longer allowed to direct juries to it having anywhere that level of certainty.

It is simply a statistical calculation of the probability of two different profiles, selected entirely at random, matching one another. However, life is anything but random, which is why it’s a nonsense statistic.

Crime scenes will have had multiple innocent people visit them, so a human judgement needs to be made about which DNA evidence is relevant and which isn’t. Forensic officers themselves visit multiple crime scenes which, despite strict procedures, still introduces the possibility of cross-contamination.

Samples can be collected inappropriately, leading to false results. Labs process multiple samples, again introducing the possibility of error.

But perhaps the most important element of doubt is actually included in the seemingly innocuous phrase ‘advances in DNA techniques’. What that actually means is that partial, mixed or degraded samples from many years ago can now be tested and a judgement then made by a human being (albeit a qualified one) as to whether they represent a match (or partial match) to another sample. The possibility for error in such cases is significantly higher than 1 in a billion.

I’m not saying that DNA evidence is unreliable and/or should be discounted. However, neither should it be thought of a some sort of silver bullet. It’s one form of evidence and should only be viewed alongside other relevant evidence in order to establish guilt.
 
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...
I'm not playing any game.
Dont call something murder when it's not. Simple as that.
 
Looking at this thread, if some people had their way, there would be no need for prisons, must be lovely living in that bubble.
anyway, don’t have nightmares, do sleep tight 👍🏻
 
Facefuzz said:
Death penalty would have caveats.
Beyond any doubt whatsoever.
Caught on cctv for example or a weight of evidence from forensic and digital
Click to expand...
There's no such verdict as "guilty beyond any doubt whatsoever."

When a person is found guilty, they're guilty, full stop - the are no shades of guilt.

Typically, the death penalty is given based on the nature of the crime, not the level of guilt (since as mentioned, there are no different levels).

And DNA is not the be all and end all that you seem to think it is.

DNA in the dock: how flawed techniques send innocent people to prison

As the article points out:

But with technology now allowing the recovery of minute traces of DNA, new challenges have arisen. Not only is it often unclear whether trace DNA is from skin cells, saliva or some other body fluid, but such DNA samples often contain material from multiple individuals, which is difficult to tease apart.

What’s more, working out when the DNA was deposited, and for how long it might have been present, is an enormous problem.
Click to expand...
[...]
According to research published by Morgan and her colleagues, rulings for 218 successful appeal cases in England and Wales between 2010 and 2016 argued that DNA evidence had been misleading.
Click to expand...

If any of those 218 cases had been for murder and the death penalty had been in force, innocent people could have been put to death rather than just imprisoned, based on misleading DNA evidence.
 
Last edited:
Laughing said:
Fingerprints. You don't have to have a complete match, and complete matches are pretty much unheard of at trial. As a general rule a fingerprint used at trial will match 1 in a hundred people. Not really the definitive piece of evidence you think it to be, is it?
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's a very big statement.

Fingerprints are absolutely unique. No two people have ever been known to share the same fingerprints. Some boffin calculated that it would be a million years before that happened.

At the scene of a crime, there may be incomplete fingerprints. Depending on how how small the dab is, there may be others that share that (very small sample of) dab. But here's the thing. If that was the case, fingerprints would not be used as primary evidence. They might be used as corroborating evidence, to show that the dab is not inconsistent with the accused being present at the scene of the crime.

But saying that complete fingerprints are not definitive is not correct. They might not be definitive in every case, but a complete dab at the scene of a crime is conclusive. How the fingerprints are collected, both at the crime scene, and from suspects, can be inconsistent. Dabs may not match when they should, but as far as I know - and I'm pretty sure, they aren't likely to yield a false positive.

I know there have been cases where fingerprint evidence has been questioned but they are pretty rare and always involve incorrectly followed processes at the crime scene, or when collecting dabs.

Miscarriages of justice happen, of course, but they are rare. The fact that they do happen is enough for most reasonable people to conclude that capital punishment is unsupportable.
 
That’s the same thing.
I’d recommend you watch a trial, or part of a trial.
Go and see an expert witness give evidence
 
It's hard not to think of capital punishment when parents are torturing, then murdering, babies and toddlers. I switch over whenever one of these cases is reported on TV, as it's so upsetting to think that if these monsters didn't care for their child then why not let someone else love, grow and cherish them. It is impossible that these infant victims could have done anything to warrant their murder., even the death penalty wouldn't be harsh enough for these evil beings.

#UTB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top