Hang em high!

[Acrylic-bob]

Following the shocking death of PC Sharon Beshenivsky at the weekend, I learn that the former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Stevens, has called for the re-introduction of the death penalty for people who kill police officers.

A few questions occur to me:

1. Is this a credible solution to the problem?

2. If it is a credible solution, why should it be limited to people who murder Police Officers, why not widen it to cover all murders?

3. Is there any chance at all of the government listening and acting on Lord Stevens advice or is the doddering old fool just flapping his gob in the breeze?

What do you think???

[chav1]

yep but only where there is no doubt , i think with modern forensics for instance its pretty hard to get mistaken identity

[lettie]

Why just police officers?

I realise that nobody expects to be killed in the course of their work and agree that it is disgusting to kill somebody who is simply doing their job, but we should not have one law for one section of society and a different law for others.

The police have fought long and hard to overcome the assumption that they are above the law. They are just as likely to be charged with a crime as anybody else should they commit one. The law should be the same for everyone whether white, black, police or Joe public..

[shakermaker]

if everyone took an eye for an eye the whole world would be blind

[SPUGGIE J]

Well if it is anything like the USA then it could drag on for years. Also would the European Court of Human Rights let them swing in the first place? It would be said it was against their human rights. How would the ECHR take being asked about the rights of the dead victim?

[Less]

Originally Posted by lettie

Why just police officers?

Quite right Bettie,
I'm willing to be the man behind the mask that pulls the lever, but only if all people are considered as worthy of both being the reason & the result for such punishment.
Police officers do this job because it is a job, I do what I do because it's a Job! If (although it's less likely because of my job) I was to be murdered by some uncaring swine I would expect as much retribution as would be given to a Police Officer a life is a life.
If the people that go out to rob & harm others are prepared to carry weapons that can take an innocent life no matter whether that person wears a policeman's uniform, a suit or a pair of overalls then they should have forfeited their own existence.
A sentence of life often doesn't mean a thing so lets harden ourselves to make sure the innocent have their right to life, long before any low life that would not care about bringing grief to the rest of us.

[mickmc]

In order to prevent too many miscarriages of justice, although there would always be the exception to the rule

I think that the death penalty should be in place automatically for those who have commited murder before - (i.e. before the death penalty was re-introduced)

Then it should be the death penalty for all convicted of murder, subject to the following circumstances

1. The decision of the Jury must be unanimous
2. The accused must be allowed every appeal available
3. following the exhaustion of all appeals, the accused must then spend a period of 10 yrs on a new "death row" during which time hopefully, any assisting new evidence may come to light
4. Yearly during this 10 yr spell on "death row" the case must be reviewed by an High Court Judge to see if any circumstances have changed and all involved should be informed of the outcome
5 At the end of that period the execution must be carried out immediately by using lethal injection

[jambutty]

A person is convicted of a crime when the evidence shows “beyond reasonable doubt” that the accused is guilty. For murder I would qualify that to “beyond ANY doubt”.

Much obliged to mickmc for presenting the rest of my argument.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I want to be in favour but I still have this little niggling thing about miscarriages of justice. A person imprisoned can always be released and compensated. A dead person can't be brought back to life.

[Less]

Originally Posted by mickmc

1. The decision of the Jury must be unanimous
2. The accused must be allowed every appeal available
3. following the exhaustion of all appeals, the accused must then spend a period of 10 yrs on a new "death row" during which time hopefully, any assisting new evidence may come to light
4. Yearly during this 10 yr spell on "death row" the case must be reviewed by an High Court Judge to see if any circumstances have changed and all involved should be informed of the outcome
5 At the end of that period the execution must be carried out immediately by using lethal injection

Oh you politically correct wimp!

You obviously want the death sentence but are not prepared to be seen as cruel to the poor little crimmywimmyinals!

1. The decision of the Jury must be unanimous

The decision of the Jury, should be final no matter if unanimous or a majority.

2. The accused must be allowed every appeal available

The accused must be sentenced and hung as soon as possible to remove them from society and as a lesson to others that might be tempted.

3. following the exhaustion of all appeals, the accused must then spend a period of 10 yrs on a new "death row" during which time hopefully, any assisting new evidence may come to light

If the appeals have been exhausted and still my weak willed friend they are found to be guilty they are GUILTY, get on with the sentence.

4. Yearly during this 10 yr spell on "death row" the case must be reviewed by an High Court Judge to see if any circumstances have changed and all involved should be informed of the outcome

That need not occur, If sentence is carried out immedietly why waste time and money that could go to better things.

5 At the end of that period the execution must be carried out immediately by using lethal injection

Death will come to us all if I die in my bed because I have been a good person I will consider myself lucky, however to help prevent others following these selfish peoples ways why make it easy for them?

[Acrylic-bob]

I take all the points about being absolutely certain of a person's guilt but there has to come a time where dragging the checking and re-checking out over years becomes not justice, but torture.

I would be in favour of a unanimous verdict and swift execution. Where a verdict is less than unanimous the sentence would have to be "life" without possibility of parole. Perhaps this would also help to end the ridiculous situation where some cases of murder are punished with a mere eight years in prison and others like Ian Brady and Peter Sutcliffe are detained until they die.

As far as the Human Rights Act goes, as we learned at the last election, the government and the opposition have both considered withdrawing from the European Convention and repealing the act, so I do not see that European interference would be that much of a problem.

[mickmc]

A Unanimous verdict says "no doubt" - a majority verdict says that somebody on that jury has a doubt

and to further qualify my argument I would propose that for those convicted of murder by a majority verdict (where someone has a doubt) - the sentence should be "Life Imprisonment" - and I do mean life - only way out is in a coffin

Whats the old sayings.... "Better that 10 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man hanged" and "Hangings too good for em"

And if you think that making the b......d count down every day to the sure end of his life is softly softly, - think of the torment that people with a terminal llness go through knowing that someday death is coming to them - only this way the swine will know the exact date and time of his/her death

Might give him time to reflect on his actions and may just deter the next guy

[Acrylic-bob]

Not dragging it out indefinitely, was a way of trying to reassure the waverers and those afflicted with an excess of scruples.

[lettie]

I'm afraid that I would prefer unanimous and swift. It would cost millions to keep these people on death row for years with appeals and re-appeals. You only have to look at the American system to see that it is a very expensive way of doing things. In the meantime, who would be paying for these scrotes to be fed, watered and legally represented through all of their appeals.....we would.

[SPUGGIE J]

Originally Posted by Acrylic-bob

Not dragging it out indefinitely, was a way of trying to reassure the waverers and those afflicted with an excess of scruples.

Dont you mean the PC brigade?