Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

on a more equal system, where all people have the chance of good parents, education, a good job and a salary, you will hardly need those punishemnt systems!

but no ! thats unacceptable

ps : questions are  not welcome, by the way.. it can be achieved .. no doubt..

[Radiomarko]

I am worried about miscarriages of justice

Agreed, there have been a fair few here and in USA.

[PhilRich]

That will be a big YES from me!

[bigegg]

on a more equal system, where all people have the chance of good parents, education, a good job and a salary, you will hardly need those punishemnt systems!

but no ! thats unacceptable

ps : questions are  not welcome, by the way.. it can be achieved .. no doubt..

good parents might be difficult, but certainly all the others are available to anybody in the UK.
Harold shipman  seemed to have a good education, job and salary - no idea about his parents.
He certainly believed he deserved the death penalty.

[cem_devecioglu]

on a more equal system, where all people have the chance of good parents, education, a good job and a salary, you will hardly need those punishemnt systems!

but no ! thats unacceptable

ps : questions are  not welcome, by the way.. it can be achieved .. no doubt..

good parents might be difficult, but certainly all the others are available to anybody in the UK.
Harold shipman  seemed to have a good education, job and salary - no idea about his parents.
He certainly believed he deserved the death penalty.

the basis of education starts with the family, and some do believe human personality mostly formed within the first five years..

adding to that , babies can feel mothers pain, stress, sorrow even before birth..

[bigegg]

don't get me wrong - I believe that in most cases (barring illness and injury) most crime can be blamed on the parents.

but there MUST come a time when a child accepts responsibility for it's own actions.
If the child can't or won't:
we shoot mad dogs don't we?

[Dishevelled Den]

As I have stated I am in favour of the death penalty "when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms"

This is what must be avoided at all costs; the Derek Bentley case which is still debated today and supports the view against the death penalty:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/28/newsid_3393000/3393807.stm

You decide.  Should he have been hanged? :-/ :-/

Quite so Lizzie.

Did the phrase "Let him have it" conveyed to Bentley mean that he should shoot the police officer or that he should surrender his weapon to him instead?

[cem_devecioglu]

don't get me wrong - I believe that in most cases (barring illness and injury) most crime can be blamed on the parents.

but there MUST come a time when a child accepts responsibility for it's own actions.
If the child can't or won't:
we shoot mad dogs don't we?

I owned many cats and dogs whole my life.. trust me their behvaiour learning path, not so different than a human..  very rarely comes an example outside the general theories.. you only get whet you crop..

of course within the equation you must be able to control the environment..  but considering that also humans make up the environment factors we again turn back to the starting point imo..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

As I have stated I am in favour of the death penalty "when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms"

This is what must be avoided at all costs; the Derek Bentley case which is still debated today and supports the view against the death penalty:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/28/newsid_3393000/3393807.stm

You decide.  Should he have been hanged? :-/ :-/

Quite so Lizzie.

Did the phrase "Let him have it" conveyed to Bentley mean that he should shoot the police officer or that he should surrender his weapon to him instead?

That has been the big question of course for the last 57 years.

It is interesting to note that my link makes the following present day comment:

"Scientific evidence also showed the three police officers who testified about Bentley shouting "Let him have it" had lied under oath."

Never knew this myself Zulu

[bigegg]

but didn't 12 independent jurors decide he meant "kill the policeman"?
Either way - a post-trial investigation into his mental health, using otherwise banned "truth" drugs and/or hypnosis, and/or <whatever> would have established the extent of his guilt.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

but didn't 12 independent jurors decide he meant "kill the policeman"?
Either way - a post-trial investigation into his mental health, using otherwise banned "truth" drugs and/or hypnosis, and/or <whatever> would have established the extent of his guilt.

But were the jurors terrible wrong to interpret this as they did?  "Let him have it" could well have meant give the policeman the gun. That has been the BIG issue with this case, and because Bentley had been hanged by the time serious doubts were raised, it was all too late.  Hence the decision to halt the issuing of death penalties later.

[geoffr70]

I am worried about miscarriages of justice

Agreed, there have been a fair few here and in USA.

Same here.

In my greener days I would have said let's roll out the death penalty, but with the miscarriages of justice it wouldn't be right. We have seen it so many times.

This will sound like a huge contradiction but, just because someone is found guilty in a court of law doesn't mean they did it, and vice versa, although obviously we have to draw the line somewhere.

Whilst not being religious, who are we to decide who lives and who doesn't?  Surely we should rise above the ways of the dreggs of humanity.

Terrorism however, that is different. They should be exterminated like the cancer of the planet they are. Committing crimes against the planet and its people, they're human in form only.

Oh yeah forgot to say, with the inclusion of DNA evidence etc, people seem to think that it is conclusive and removes all reasonable doubt. Yes, it is probably true (I'm no DNA scientist or whatever the proper name is for them) that the likelihood of sharing DNA with someone is 1 in so many billions, but if your DNA or anything like that is found at a crime scene or used to implicate you in some way, there could be many genuine and innocent reasons why your DNA could be there without you having done the crime. Slim, but possible, and people close their mind to this and think DNA is like the 'word of God'.

It would be unforgivable for the state to execute someone who was innocent, after using their flawd systems to prove guilt.

[bigegg]

very rarely comes an example outside the general theories.. you only get whet you crop..

of course within the equation you must be able to control the environment..  but considering that also humans make up the environment factors we again turn back to the starting point imo..

so...
we should execute the parents and teachers of the murderers as well?

that was tongue-in-cheek to be honest. but you have to start somewhere.
may be we should just sterilise the families of the convicted murderers, and ban them from having any contact with other peoples children?

I grew up with, and was best friends with, a complete toe-rag.
football hooligan. alcoholic. smackhead. smoking at 12. burgling.

he drew the line at mugging old ladies. and spent three years in yong offender's nick for putting one such in a wheelchair.

he died at 21 of a gas-sniffing heart attack.
his parents were middle=class educated "normal" people.
He and I were raised together, pretty much as a single family with four parents - effectively he and I were brought up in the same environment.
I've NEVER smoked, let alone taken drugs. I've never had any dealings with the police (except for the odd traffic offence ), I've never robbed - and I'm essentially non-violent.
How does that fit your "environment" theory?

[bigegg]

but didn't 12 independent jurors decide he meant "kill the policeman"?

But were the jurors terrible wrong to interpret this as they did?  "Let him have it" could well have meant give the policeman the gun. That has been the BIG issue with this case, and because Bentley had been hanged by the time serious doubts were raised, it was all too late.  Hence the decision to halt the issuing of death penalties later.

I don't know.
I wasn't there.
Nor have I read the transcript of the trial.
The twelve jurors WERE there. And saw the entire trial.
Therefore I have to believe:
1. They know more of the facts than I do.
2. They had no ulterior motive to convict beyond the evidence.
3. They made the correct decision.

Hindsight is wonderful - but even if the conviction WAS wrong.
That points to the "trial by jury" system as being wrong, and NOT the death penalty [1]


[1] Cat. Pigeons. Mix

[Vamps]

Yes, when there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever in both legal and actual terms, especially when the victim is a police officer or a child.

I think that should include any public servant or health worker if in the line of duty.....