Death Penalty , should this guy die ?

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

Is that not the whole point of this debate? To have an academic discussion on the death penalty? You're in favour of it and hes asking you what you'd do when mistakes were made as you can't just release dead people from jail.

I think that the debate has gone beyond the point of a discussion of the death penalty. Even in the US which has the death penalty in many states, the citizen is protected, as are we in Canada thro our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, against cruel and unusual punishment. Some of the comments on this thread go way beyond this.

[blazey]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

But we used to have, and it has happened so that is one very good reason for not bringing back the death penalty.

I haven't met at uni yet studying law with me that has said they would bring back the death penalty either, so i guess in theory, the academic answer to should we bring back the death penalty is no.

This debate has gone on time and time again on this forum and people are going to stand by their views, but no matter what they say, its not going to be brought back, so it isn't really worth discussing any more in my opinion.

Oh and willow this post is in agreement with you, not the opposite just in case you aren't sure why I quoted you.

[Stanaccy]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Whether you like it or not or are prepared to admit it, wanting a criminal punished for their crime is exacting vengeance on them. But instead of doing it ourselves we let the judicial system do it on our behalf.

Let me see if I have got this right. Christianity stemmed from Jesus who was the Son of God. God handed down the Ten Commandments to Moses one of which was the ‘thou shalt not kill’ bit. It also stated ‘thou shalt not steal’ ‘nor covet thy neighbour’s wife’. There’s an awful lot of stealing going on and coveting.

Yet according to the Old Testament this God parted the waters of the Red Sea to let the Israelites through then let the waters close on the thousands of Egyptian soldiers pursuing them and they drowned. This God didn’t do this just once he did it twice. This God killed the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah when they refused to change their licentious and incestuous ways. This God ordered the Israelites to attack and take Jericho by force, meaning that they killed all and sundry. Jericho was the first of many cities dealt with in this way. This God struck down all who opposed him or blasphemed him.

Oh! I get it! The God was a ‘do as I say’ not a ‘do as I do’ God.

For centuries Christians have raised armies and attacked and killed their enemies for no other reason than to gain land or to foist their beliefs onto others. The last notable Christian to have killed millions, albeit by proxy, was Adolph Hitler and I do believe that he was a Catholic.

2. The question is academic because we don’t have the death penalty in the UK.

3. I have no idea. Which countries are you referring to? Us and the US? Some statistics would be helpful to back up your claim.

4. Lock them up until their death or hang them.

It is not my definition but that of people far clever and more thoroughly versed in the English language than me.

The passing of the death sentence is an action by a judge in accordance with the law and is thus a legal action just as much as handing out 10 years clink. Murder by definition is not a legal action.

Right I will take your answers in order.
1) God and other christians have maimed, slaughtered, executed, raped, pillaged and massacred in the past so it's ok for modern christians to do the same? Hmm touch of hypocrisy methinks.

2) Yes the question is academic but you are arguing in favour of the death penalty so it is a possibility that has to be considered. Ipso Facto I am still awaiting the answer.

3)Try this address here NationMaster - Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
this gives a list of the main nations and there murder rates.

4) Right so executing a criminal for 1 offence will act as a serious deterrent to stop them killing 2, 3 or even more times. Hmmm yes I see your argument there.

I was only following your definition of murder, and by following that I am correct in calling capital punishment murder by the state.

Yes they may have been found guilty in a court of law, yes it may be a jury of peers, however the prosecution when it is pushing for the death penalty glorifies all the lurid detail in almost pornographic detail and is no better than a tabloid paper. All the details would have come out in the trial itself so why they need to dwell on it is pure sensationalism.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Cyfr

Is that not the whole point of this debate? To have an academic discussion on the death penalty? You're in favour of it and hes asking you what you'd do when mistakes were made as you can't just release dead people from jail.

Playing devil’s advocate again are you?

Surely the whole point of a debate is to discuss issues that are relevant to the time. Obsolete issues I leave to the historians.

However to satisfy the curiosity of some people I will answer the question of “2 How do you say sorry to a corpse if they have been wrongly convicted and executed?”
You can’t. The best that can be done is to apologise to the corpse’s next of kin.

But there would be no need to apologise to anyone if certain safeguards were in place, as I have already explained in a previous post. But then who reads the whole thread before sticking their oar in? Some do although I suspect that many do not.

I would suggest that once a criminal is convicted of murder and the death sentence has been passed, it is not carried out for at least five years. This should be long enough for the defence team to launch appeals and seek out further evidence of innocence, if there is any, or challenge the validity of the prosecution evidence.

The police should be forced to reveal all the details of their investigation to the defence team and vice versa. Any forensic evidence should be available to the defence so that they can have it checked by an independent forensic analyst.

And finally the accused should HAVE to go into the witness box to be cross examined by both sides. Let the jury hear from the horse’s mouth so to speak.

OK! Who is going to be the first to trot out Stefan Kiszko who spent 16 years in prison after being wrongly convicted? Back in 1976 forensic and medical science was nowhere near as good as it is today. It is highly unlikely that such an incident could occur today. And it is today and tomorrow this discussion is about, not yesterday.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by jambutty

Playing devil’s advocate again are you?

Surely the whole point of a debate is to discuss issues that are relevant to the time. Obsolete issues I leave to the historians.

However to satisfy the curiosity of some people I will answer the question of “2 How do you say sorry to a corpse if they have been wrongly convicted and executed?”
You can’t. The best that can be done is to apologise to the corpse’s next of kin.

But there would be no need to apologise to anyone if certain safeguards were in place, as I have already explained in a previous post. But then who reads the whole thread before sticking their oar in? Some do although I suspect that many do not.

I would suggest that once a criminal is convicted of murder and the death sentence has been passed, it is not carried out for at least five years. This should be long enough for the defence team to launch appeals and seek out further evidence of innocence, if there is any, or challenge the validity of the prosecution evidence.

The police should be forced to reveal all the details of their investigation to the defence team and vice versa. Any forensic evidence should be available to the defence so that they can have it checked by an independent forensic analyst.

And finally the accused should HAVE to go into the witness box to be cross examined by both sides. Let the jury hear from the horse’s mouth so to speak.

OK! Who is going to be the first to trot out Stefan Kiszko who spent 16 years in prison after being wrongly convicted? Back in 1976 forensic and medical science was nowhere near as good as it is today. It is highly unlikely that such an incident could occur today. And it is today and tomorrow this discussion is about, not yesterday.

I just can not see how crime, shocking and horrendous crime, and how to punish it can be termed an "obsolete issue." Societies have been trying to come to terms with this since day one. As an issue, it is one that won't go away, and it is anything but obsolete.

Apologize to a wrongly executed person's next of kin! A letter from the Queen, saying "sorry we screwed up on this one." I can think of few punishments more cruel and unusual than putting a person who knows he is innocent on a gallows, putting a rope round his neck, giving him god's best wishes and pulling the lever. And then to inflict a slightly less cruel apology on his loved ones.

And the question of safeguards. They already exist. Absolute certainty we will rarely have.

And what is this about forcing an accused to testify. Damn, there goes the Fifth Ammendment and the versions of that wonderful provision that we have in our Charter. I would be surprised if any of our American Friends would go for such gutting of their Constitutional rights.

And cerainly, the police are better equipped to uncover evidence scientifically, and, as you say, it is unlikely that mistakes will be made. But in the case of an innocent man going to the gallows, the chair, or any equivalent, "highly unlikely" is just not good enough.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Eric

I just can not see how crime, shocking and horrendous crime, and how to punish it can be termed an "obsolete issue." Societies have been trying to come to terms with this since day one. As an issue, it is one that won't go away, and it is anything but obsolete.

Apologize to a wrongly executed person's next of kin! A letter from the Queen, saying "sorry we screwed up on this one." I can think of few punishments more cruel and unusual than putting a person who knows he is innocent on a gallows, putting a rope round his neck, giving him god's best wishes and pulling the lever. And then to inflict a slightly less cruel apology on his loved ones.

And the question of safeguards. They already exist. Absolute certainty we will rarely have.

And what is this about forcing an accused to testify. Damn, there goes the Fifth Ammendment and the versions of that wonderful provision that we have in our Charter. I would be surprised if any of our American Friends would go for such gutting of their Constitutional rights.

And cerainly, the police are better equipped to uncover evidence scientifically, and, as you say, it is unlikely that mistakes will be made. But in the case of an innocent man going to the gallows, the chair, or any equivalent, "highly unlikely" is just not good enough.

It isn’t crime that is an obsolete issue but a debate on capital punishment that no longer exists in the UK.

But then why let facts get in the way making a reply?

This may come as a great shock to you but here in the UK we don’t have a fifth or any amendments. We don’t even have a constitution.

When capital punishment was legal in the UK the judge would set a date for the execution, which was months rather than years away. This was to allow for any last minute appeals for clemency. That is a long way short of a minimum of five years.

Why shouldn’t the accused be forced to take the stand? After all he is the one being accused of a crime. Witnesses have to take the stand and some under cross-examination have been known to end up admitting that they lied. To be a successful liar you have to live the lie and it is one thing doing so amongst your mates but quite another in open court.

I don’t give a Tinkers cuss for US law, this is the UK.

There is nothing as powerful as being cross-examined to get at the truth. There is only one person who knows the truth about a crime – the person who committed it.

Go on tell me about false confessions made under duress in the interview room. That is totally different to an open court where the jury and everybody else attending, including people in the gallery will see and hear how the cross-examination is conducted. The judge and jury will decide if the defendant ends up confessing because he was bullied into doing so or he tripped himself up by lying.

Highly unlikely or the other way around highly likely is good enough. In criminal law a person is guilty as charged if the evidence against him is beyond reasonable doubt and judges have been know to accept a 10 – 2 verdict of guilt or innocence. So highly likely or unlikely is well established in law and acceptable.

Even in a civil court the verdict is based on the balance of probabilities. Sort of highly unlikely or likely! Not a certainty in sight.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Stanaccy

Right I will take your answers in order.
1) God and other christians have maimed, slaughtered, executed, raped, pillaged and massacred in the past so it's ok for modern christians to do the same? Hmm touch of hypocrisy methinks.

2) Yes the question is academic but you are arguing in favour of the death penalty so it is a possibility that has to be considered. Ipso Facto I am still awaiting the answer.

3)Try this address here NationMaster - Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
this gives a list of the main nations and there murder rates.

4) Right so executing a criminal for 1 offence will act as a serious deterrent to stop them killing 2, 3 or even more times. Hmmm yes I see your argument there.

I was only following your definition of murder, and by following that I am correct in calling capital punishment murder by the state.

Yes they may have been found guilty in a court of law, yes it may be a jury of peers, however the prosecution when it is pushing for the death penalty glorifies all the lurid detail in almost pornographic detail and is no better than a tabloid paper. All the details would have come out in the trial itself so why they need to dwell on it is pure sensationalism.

I don’t recall saying that it was OK for modern Christians to kill just because it happened in Biblical times. If you are going to put words in my mouth then do be so kind as to put the right words in.

Your link now puts some meat on the bones of your statement.

However what the statistics don’t say is that the US has a gun culture that is written into their constitution so the means of committing murder are more readily available. If you are going to compare the UK with another country you should at least compare it with a country that has similar gun laws that we have. What about Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Greece, Japan, Saudi Arabia etc.

The other point you have to take into account is the actual population. A large proportion of the population in the States consists of African descendants and Hispanic. Both groups traditionally did not view life in the same way as we do now. Life was cheap to them and it takes many generations to eradicate that attitude. Look what is happening in Africa today.

In fact many years ago life was cheap in the UK.

And then the USA was won, not with the plough but with the gun.

I have yet to see a dead person kill another. No facetious remarks about how a person having died from the Ebola virus can infect a living person and cause their death please. If we had capital punishment today it wouldn’t stop the hardened criminals but it would make many fringe criminals think again. Maybe not right away but as the hangings mounted up the message would go out.

Capital punishment was a lawful act as decreed by Parliament – therefore it cannot be murder. Murder is premeditated UNLAWFUL killing. So you are wrong to call capital punishment murder by the state. Lawful killing yes, murder no.

To get at the truth it may be necessary to reveal all the gory details. However in the UK and in real life the prosecution doesn’t push for the death penalty. Any judge worthy of the name would slap them down if they tried. You’ve been watching too many American court dramas. The prosecution’s job is to present the evidence in an attempt to prove the accused guilty. The defence’s job is to counter that evidence, if it can and establish the innocence of the accused. But the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The jury decides on the verdict after hearing all the evidence and the judge passes sentence. No one tells the judge what that sentence is to be except the tariffs as laid down by Parliament.

As a citizen of this land you are perfectly entitled to attend a murder trial or just about any other trial for that matter and see what happens in real life. I have and its not a bit like portrayed on TV and in films. You don’t get some smart Alec barrister presenting a coup de grâce to get the defendant off. You don’t get the drama.

[bullseyebarb]

Originally Posted by steeljack

Wondering what the folks who are agaist the death penalty feel should happen to the guy in this news item
Death sentence for alligator child killer - Telegraph

according to the story the guy dumped a 5 yr old child in the Florida everglades to be eaten alive by the Alligators , does anyone feel the guy is deserving of a life sentance or should he go and sit on 'ole sparkys knee' (Florida still uses the electric chair...I think )

Florida has lethal injection now.....the use of Old Sparky having been challenged. Same here in Georgia. Some crimes are so heinous that they deserve the punishment of death. This one fits the bill.

Of course, the U.S. already has a de-facto death penalty moratorium. With defense attorneys eking out appeals in drip, drip, drip fashion, it can take decades before sentence is carried out. I believe that the current method of lethal injection will be challenged at the Supreme Court. It is already wending its way up there.

The majority of Americans approve of the death penalty in certain cases. And, if a life sentence really meant life, juries might opt for that more frequently than they already do.

Then, of course, you have escapes. Even in high profile cases. Remember that one of the most infamous serial killers in U.S. history, Ted Bundy, escaped from jail twice - and went on to kill more women before he was finally captured and eventually executed.

[bullseyebarb]

As an added note, we've had lawyers from the U.K. here in Georgia recently, including Richard Lissack, QC, and members of Clifford Chance and Outer Temple Chambers, seeking a stay of execution for one Jack Alderman - on death row since 1974 for the murder of his wife. According to Lissack, et al, Mr. Alderman is a great guy and not only should sentence of death be overturned but he should be released from jail forthwith. Oh, OK then.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by jambutty

It isn’t crime that is an obsolete issue but a debate on capital punishment that no longer exists in the UK.

But then why let facts get in the way making a reply?

This may come as a great shock to you but here in the UK we don’t have a fifth or any amendments. We don’t even have a constitution.

When capital punishment was legal in the UK the judge would set a date for the execution, which was months rather than years away. This was to allow for any last minute appeals for clemency. That is a long way short of a minimum of five years.

Why shouldn’t the accused be forced to take the stand? After all he is the one being accused of a crime. Witnesses have to take the stand and some under cross-examination have been known to end up admitting that they lied. To be a successful liar you have to live the lie and it is one thing doing so amongst your mates but quite another in open court.

I don’t give a Tinkers cuss for US law, this is the UK.

There is nothing as powerful as being cross-examined to get at the truth. There is only one person who knows the truth about a crime – the person who committed it.

Go on tell me about false confessions made under duress in the interview room. That is totally different to an open court where the jury and everybody else attending, including people in the gallery will see and hear how the cross-examination is conducted. The judge and jury will decide if the defendant ends up confessing because he was bullied into doing so or he tripped himself up by lying.

Highly unlikely or the other way around highly likely is good enough. In criminal law a person is guilty as charged if the evidence against him is beyond reasonable doubt and judges have been know to accept a 10 – 2 verdict of guilt or innocence. So highly likely or unlikely is well established in law and acceptable.

Even in a civil court the verdict is based on the balance of probabilities. Sort of highly unlikely or likely! Not a certainty in sight.

Of course England has a constitution. It's not a document that one can buy in a bookstore, a nice thick Penguin classic, with "Constitution" written on it, but the centuries of common law, precedent, and statute law. And what form of govt does the UK have? A Constitutional Monarchy. And just because there is no clause called a fifth ammendment does not mean that it doesn't exist in England in fact and in practice.

And this silliness of having an accused forced to take the stand. How does one "force" if not by using the "duress" mentioned in another place in your post? And how does one force an accused to tell the truth? Thumbscrews?

And in a subsequent post you talk about the "law" as if it is the final word. That it somehow has the divine sanction of the decalogue. It is firmly in the English tradition where it began, and in all the legal systems of democratic countries, that some laws are, in essence, illegal. The idea of "ultra vires" gives the judiciaries the right to judge the legality of laws. The US supreme court is an fine example.

Ever since Nuremberg, the democratic communities of the world, seem to agree that just because a certain govt passes "laws" this does not mean that they are "legal" or "just" in the wider sense.

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Eric

Of course England has a constitution. It's not a document that one can buy in a bookstore, a nice thick Penguin classic, with "Constitution" written on it, but the centuries of common law, precedent, and statute law. And what form of govt does the UK have? A Constitutional Monarchy. And just because there is no clause called a fifth ammendment does not mean that it doesn't exist in England in fact and in practice.

And this silliness of having an accused forced to take the stand. How does one "force" if not by using the "duress" mentioned in another place in your post? And how does one force an accused to tell the truth? Thumbscrews?

And in a subsequent post you talk about the "law" as if it is the final word. That it somehow has the divine sanction of the decalogue. It is firmly in the English tradition where it began, and in all the legal systems of democratic countries, that some laws are, in essence, illegal. The idea of "ultra vires" gives the judiciaries the right to judge the legality of laws. The US supreme court is an fine example.

Ever since Nuremberg, the democratic communities of the world, seem to agree that just because a certain govt passes "laws" this does not mean that they are "legal" or "just" in the wider sense.

England does not have a written constitution similar to the one for the USA. The nearest we have is the Magna Carta but even that is a long way from a proper constitution.

What we have is a set of laws that appear on a variety of documents generated over the years. See http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british_constitution1.htm

The fact that we have a Constitutional Monarchy doesn’t mean we have a constitution. See http://www.royal.gov.uk/textonly/Page4682.asp

A prisoner does have the right to silence in England except in one motoring law, which has driven a coach and horses through that right. In fact there have been recent rumblings in Parliament to take away that right for all criminal charges.

If the best that you can do is make derogatory remarks about a suggestion, calling it silly, then you really must be scraping the barrel to try and some give validity to your point of view.

You obviously know nothing about being cross-examined in the witness box. No one forces anyone to say anything but with skilled questioning under observation of the whole of the court, a council will get at the truth much quicker. Refusing to answer a question can say more than the actual answer. After all doesn’t the accused get questioned by the police after being arrested? So what is the difference to being questioned in open court? I’ll tell you. The difference is that the judge, jury and everyone else will be a witness to the questioning. They will see that the questioning is fair and just and no recriminations afterwards that the prisoner was bullied into making a confession as has happened so many times. Talking about thumbscrews is just a facetious remark that people often employ when they haven’t got a constructive point to make and are arguing for arguments sake.

The law is the final word in England whether you like it or not. The laws of the land decree what we, the citizens, can and cannot do and also lays down the penalties if we are caught breaking the law. That sounds pretty final to me.

“decalogue” Now where did you dig that one up from? Did you think that you could baffle me with words that are hardly used these days? In any case it hardly applies to English law, which has nothing divine about it.

A legitimate law passed by a legitimate government cannot be illegal. It can be controversial or even contradictory with other laws but never illegal. You do understand the English language I presume.

As I stated before I don’t give a Tinker’s cuss about US laws or the US courts, supreme or otherwise. This is debate is about English law and references to any other country’s laws is an irrelevance. But then if you don’t have a constructive argument to put forward to add weight to your position then bring in irrelevances to try and confuse the issue. It’s an age old tactic.

Legal and just are two entirely different concepts. Some people may consider a law to be just and others may consider it to be unjust but if passed by a legitimate government it is legal. FULL STOP!

My view is neither right nor wrong, just mine. Some people may agree with it whilst others may not.

You can argue yourself until you are blue in the face but I have made my position clear on this subject and I have no intention of repeating myself endlessly to satisfy some warped argumentative psyche.

[LancYorkYankee]

In response to the case in hand. I am for the death penalty. Absolutely no qualms or reservations. And yes, I would have absolutely NO problem giving the injection or putting the noose around this animal's neck or putting a bullet in his bloody head.

I have a very hard time comprehending how people this things life should be spared and allowed a life of free room and board as the family suffers evreyday without having their justice.

I also, as a Bible-Believing Christian, again have no reservations nor any contradictions with either the Old Testament ("purge the evil from your midst") or the New Testament.

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by jambutty

As I stated before I don’t give a Tinker’s cuss about US laws or the US courts, supreme or otherwise. This is debate is about English law and references to any other country’s laws is an irrelevance. But then if you don’t have a constructive argument to put forward to add weight to your position then bring in irrelevances to try and confuse the issue. It’s an age old tactic.

When did this become a debate about English law ? the original question was what do people think would be a suitable punishment for the person mentioned in the Florida case .

Originally Posted by steeljack

Wondering what the folks who are agaist the death penalty feel should happen to the guy in this news item
Death sentence for alligator child killer - Telegraph

according to the story the guy dumped a 5 yr old child in the Florida everglades to be eaten alive by the Alligators , does anyone feel the guy is deserving of a life sentance or should he go and sit on 'ole sparkys knee' (Florida still uses the electric chair...I think )

Maybe if folks want to discuss the merits of "English" legal system they should start a new thread saying how good they think it is when a thug walks away from Court after beating up a 95 yr old

[steeljack]

Originally Posted by steeljack

Maybe if folks want to discuss the merits of "English" legal system they should start a new thread saying how good they think it is when a thug walks away from Court after beating up a 95 yr old

Apologies , just seen the new thread by Bernadette

Originally Posted by BERNADETTE

An attacker who left a 96-year-old war veteran blind in one eye after attacking him on a packed tram has been given a three year supervision order. The attack was caught on CCTV and British Transport Police are said to be "disappointed " with the outcome of the trial. I find things like this hard to believe and was just wondering what other people thought about the Sentence!!!!

[jambutty]

Originally Posted by steeljack

When did this become a debate about English law ? the original question was what do people think would be a suitable punishment for the person mentioned in the Florida case .

I believe that it was Stanaccy (post 19) who was responsible for drifting this thread onto English law by highlighting the case of Derek Bentley. The discussion then drifted into people calling state killing murder and it went on from there.

But then that is what happens to many threads. They get pulled away from the topic.