Is it time ?

When I was younger I was in favour of the death penalty. But having entered into this argument time and time again, for reasons of the burden of the absolute proof, I am against the death penalty.

Changing tack slightly, I do believe that the legal system is hopeless. Sentencing is a joke. Far too lenient. Murder, child molestation etc etc should mean life (as in to the end of days). Instead life these days can mean perhaps ten years. Where is the justice in that? Where is the deterance in that?

May I refer you back to the original post.....

Dear Deane,

Two of us in the same boat, and neither going for the death penalty. But life in chokey, is fair enough. It cannot be repeated then...

Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
May I refer you back to the original post.....

Sorry, I should have made myself clearer. It appears that time and time again that innocent people are subsequently freed from their sentences. Yet at the time of their trial it would probably be fair to say that they appeared guilty beyond doubt. And yet... And it is on this basis that my suggestion of the absolute proof requires a definition. How can we define the absolute proof? Based on past experience I doubt that we really could have the absolute proof.

To summarise comments from a friend of mine who is a serving police man (and to think I give the police a hard time???) - we know who the guilty "scrotes" are and if we could get them off the streets then crime will be reduced by 80% (???) overnight yet the burden of proof is such that we can't pull them. They know that. They are well briefed on their "rights". So clearly the legal system is not working. It is not a sufficient punishment or correctional measure. So surely if sentencing was more appropriate then a) there may be a better deterrant element and b) if they are off the streets then they can't commit further crime.

quote:

Originally posted by MichaelC:
And it is on this basis that my suggestion of the absolute proof requires a definition. How can we define the absolute proof? Based on past experience I doubt that we really could have the absolute proof.

I think that an adversarial system militates against any possible definitin of absolute proof.

A preponderance of witnesses is certainly not enough - unless Elvis really *is* alive...

Given that execution is often murder by the state of an innocent person life imprisonment allows them to be set free if proven innocent later.

Perhaps bleeding-heart psychologists/psychiatrists/human-rights watchers who release dangerous criminals to re-offend should be sentenced to death instead? It would certainly reduce such crime considerably more than executing just a few prisoners....

I salute Fredrik and Deane for their balance.

Paul

All--

Debates about the death penalty seem to inevitably degenerate into an effort on both sides to claim the moral high ground.

In American criminal law, and, indeed, in most common law jurisdictions, there are four recognized theories of punishment. These theories inevitably overlap. Three of them offer justifications for capital punishment. The fourth does not.

The first theory of punishment is rehabilitation. As you would expect, the emphasis is on "rehabilitating" the convicted person with a clear goal of the person re-entering society. There is not enough space to go into the whys, wherefores, etc., but permit me to say that rehabilitation is less and less effective as the magnitude of the crime increases. Thus, one is less likely to "rehabilitate" a multiple murderer or rapist than someone convicted of simple larceny. Rehabilitation, therefore, has nothing to offer in support of the imposition of capital punishment.

The second theory of punishment is deterrence. That is the idea that punishment will deter people from committing crime in the first place. And indeed, every study I have read says that punishment is a deterrent to crime, although the severity of the punishment is far less significant than the certainty of punishment. I have yet to read a credible study supporting the idea that the death penalty deters the crimes for which it may be imposed. On the other hand, there are studies that show states (in the US) with a death penalty have lower normalized rates of violent crime than states without one. Generally speaking, however, the deterrent effect of capital punishment is minimal.

The third theory of punishment is retribution. Contrary to assertions above, retribution is a valid and recognized reason to punish someone. While it does not bring the victim or victims back, retribution inflicts pain back on the person or persons who inflicted it in the first place. And the death penalty certainly does that.

The fourth theory is incapacitation. This is the idea that a person is incapacitated and thus cannot commit further crimes. There is no known case of an executed person committing futher crimes, and so it must be said that incapacitation, via capital punishment, is effective.

Needless to say there are libraries of fact and opinion around capital punishment, and the above represents a tiny step. However, if we are to have an informed debate about capital punishment, we might want to keep the above in mind.

Best,

Bob

quote:

The third theory of punishment is retribution. Contrary to assertions above, retribution is a valid and recognized reason to punish someone. While it does not bring the victim or victims back, retribution inflicts pain back on the person or persons who inflicted it in the first place. And the death penalty certainly does that.

Retribution is never a valid tenet of justice whether it's recognised as such or not. My grandmother turned 100 at the weekend and one of her favourite sayings was always that two wrongs don't make a right. I defer my own reasoning to someone so old and yet so clear in her mind, even at her age.

Just like the victim, the criminal has loved-ones who may not be criminals themselves. Surely they have the right not to mourn the loss of one of their kith and kin who has died by immoral due process.

L-T-D,

I'd give my permission to trained marksmen to take out the guy with a gun to my head if attempts at negotiation had failed and/or neither myself nor other passengers in my vehicle, and other bystanders were not at risk from the marksmen but were maybe at risk from the gunman.

WRT the judicial system the debate is not simply a choice between the death penalty and so-called "life" imprisonment that may often result in a murderer being released after ten years or so. I agree that rehabilitation isn't an option for some crimes and that life really should mean just that.

The argument to justify the death penalty on the basis that the judicial process cannot be relied upon to ensure that murderers remain incarcerated for their remaining existance, is a fatuous one at best.

Instead, for certain crimes we should plug for the notion that life should mean life with no parole. As for the cost, we all know that those on "Death Row" cost more to the US taxpayer than if they were simply left to rot in jail until death therein.

Personal opinions cost breath but personal convictions cost blood. Given enough time a state that practices capital punishment will one day execute in error. It is easier to accept the idea when it is impersonal but to give the idea proper consideration one needs to imagine oneself or one's son, daughter, father or mother facing the death penalty wrongfully.

Would a proponent of the death penalty please either address the possibility of wrongful execution or the problem of defining the meaning of "without doubt".

Otherwise this thread is just chatter.

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik H:
Dear Deane,

Two of us in the same boat, and neither going for the death penalty. But life in chokey, is fair enough. It cannot be repeated then...

Fredrik

But Fredrik, how is a sexual crime different from other crimes that have victims? Why in particular ought child abusers to be jailed for life to prevent further offending? Ought not then this principle extend to all crimes that create victims?

Recidivist offenders ought to be locked away for life - but in my jurisdiction the sentence of preventive detention is already available and allows the Corrections Department (which administers the prison system in NZ) to imprison a repeat serious offender until they are no longer considered to be a risk.

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:
It seems we agree to differ but it seems that the Suicide Bomber (or suspect suicide bomber) is afforded differing status from others.

It seems to me that :

1. Suicide Bombers should be executed without trial by means of fatal shooting - just in case.
2. Armed hostage takers can be killed in a similar fashion as there is a potential of murder.
3. A person who has demonstrated WITHOUT DOUBT that they have committed an incredibly serious crime against humanity and society should be afforded the priviledge of an expensive incarceration at great financial burden to the society they have scarred. Right of parole and freedom is probable after a period. They are then (and has been demonstrated in many, many, many cases) free to commit further crimes of a similar nature.

So the fact is that we, as a society, are prepared to execute people on the basis of potential killing but not actually have the death penalty as part of the legal statute to deal with cases of actual killing. mass murder or paedophillia.

Smacks of double standards if you ask me.

There is a clear distinction between those killed in the commission of a crime and those executed following due legal process - the latter being the debate you started originally and which we should not allow ourselves to be sidetracked from.

You talk about proof of guilt "without doubt". Currently, the standard of proof required to convict (where the accused defends the action) is "beyond reasonable doubt" - in what way would your burden of proof be different?

quote:

Originally posted by long-time-dead:

Had this crime commanded the death penatly, the rifle might not have been lifted or used.

Maybe it is just me, but it doesn't really seem that the sentence befits the crime these days.

Are we running a tight ship or a shite tip ?

We had murderers when we had the death penalty. We also had a lot of innocent people killed by the state.

Does capital punishment work in the States?

And doubt about conviction after you've been executed wouldn't have helped the Guilford Four or the the Birmingham Six, would it?



Stephen

In the case of the crime illustrated above, a good start would be to ban such weapons and bang up for life anyone convicted of making/importing/selling/buying/possessing it. Slightly off beam but I’m not even going near the original question – the mere fact that it’s considered viable is proof if any were needed that we’re barely out of the trees IMO.

Cheers

Harry

Isn't it just so easy to say "bang 'em up for life", or "kill the bastards"?

And isn't it good that none of us has the absolute power that would be needed to set up such a harsh system or make radical changes to the system that has evolved slowly through the years in response to discussion and thought rather than emotional backlashes?

(These are not rhetorical questions.)

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
Retribution should play no part in the justice system for it does nothing to bring back the victim.

This is true, but it saves us wasting £££ a week keeping the scum alive inside jail. I mean, seriously, who really gives a toss about the lapses that allowed Shipman to top himself, for example?

It's the innocents like Timothy Evans (the wrongly-hung guy in the Reginald Christie/10 Rillington Place) that suffer from Capital Punishment, but in a clear-cut case (such as CCTV footage, several samples of DNA, etc) I see no reason why we can't off the perp. And not just for child murder either - it should apply to ANY muderer and rapist as well, if you ask me.

However, since there's always margin for corruption, reinstating a death penalty is a very VERY tricky thing...

I just don't want to see human trash like this get to have their "human rights" and cushty stuff like TV and social visits when they're inside; if we won't kill them; then their life should be an undiluted hell. Why was the Yorkshire Ripper allowed out to visit his dad's ashes, for example? It's plain wrong, when none of his victims got any "human rights".

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Isn't it just so easy to say "bang 'em up for life", or "kill the bastards"?

And isn't it good that none of us has the absolute power that would be needed to set up such a harsh system or make radical changes to the system that has evolved slowly through the years in response to discussion and thought rather than emotional backlashes?

(These are not rhetorical questions.)

This is why we can talk about it so freely. But sadly this power already exists to a limited extent. When in a local shop last year browsing the plumbing supplies, a shop employee who was on jury service came in to give her colleagues the edited highlights of her hard day in court. The conversation went something along the lines of ‘We did him good. You could tell he was guilty just by looking at him – bloody tattoos and earings. Scum like that needs locking up. I wouldn’t want him walking down my street. They should all be castrated’.

Of course, talk is cheap and I have no way of knowing the exact circumstances of the case. But it didn’t strike me as a particularly good starting point.

Cheers

Harry

Capital punishment could be an alternative but in very specific circumstances:

· Defendant is “fit to plead” – i.e. not of unsound mind

· Defendant pleads guilty at the trial

· Trial judge is convinced that the guilty plea is consistent with any evidence to implicate the defendant and defendant’s account is consistent with that evidence

· Defendant is told of the court’s proposed custodial sentence

· Defendant has the option of choosing capital punishment

· Capital punishment is by automated lethal injection

· the defendant is taken to a purpose built facility where he/she has a specified amount of time to initiate the process - by pushing a button say

· If defendant fails to do so within time limit, or changes his/her mind custodial sentence must be served. No "second chance" to opt for lethal injection.

quote:

Originally posted by HTK:
Of course, talk is cheap and I have no way of knowing the exact circumstances of the case. But it didn’t strike me as a particularly good starting point. Harry

Probably just another case of international auditors implication in a multinational company's annual accounts fraud. Well, it would explain the earings and tattoos.

Yes! I was wondering that myself.

quote:

This is why we can talk about it so freely. But sadly this power already exists to a limited extent. When in a local shop last year browsing the plumbing supplies, a shop employee who was on jury service came in to give her colleagues the edited highlights of her hard day in court. The conversation went something along the lines of ‘We did him good. You could tell he was guilty just by looking at him – bloody tattoos and earings. Scum like that needs locking up. I wouldn’t want him walking down my street. They should all be castrated’.

I remember an old guy talking about his jury service a few years back. He stated that the bloke was guilty because he was a black bastard. Trial by jury is but trial by lottery.

Steve (Toy)--

With all respect, your simple assertion that "Retribution is never a valid tenet of justice whether it's recognised as such or not. My grandmother turned 100 at the weekend and one of her favourite sayings was always that two wrongs don't make a right," is simply a statement of your opinion. That is fine, but serious students of crime and criminal law recognize that retribution is indeed a valid reason to punish someone, and, in fact, is the very essence of criminal law. Without the need to mete out some consequence for a transgression of what we call law, there is no need to do anything.

You are simply questioning how far the state may go in punishing someone, and clearly believe the state is never justified in depriving someone of life, with or without due process. That's fine too--but please do not attempt to dismiss an enormous body of credible legal, academic, and policy work simply because you don't agree with it. Rather, perhaps offer an argument that no criminal should ever be punished because ANY level of punishment has SOME level of retributive quality to it.

The other major debate about the death penalty is the one we seem to have approached, and that is what level of due process is required. Opponents of capital punishment in the US invariably claim that NO level of due process is enough, and blur the line between the argument they are trying to make--that no process is perfect enough--with the moral argument you attempted to advance earlier.

Are there issues with the administration of capital punishment? Of course. Are they capable of resolution? Of course. Living in Colorado, we currently have two people on death row. There is zero--and I mean ZERO--doubt of their culpability or their mens rea. Both cases represent, in my opinion, persons deserving of execution, and I would personally have no qualms about administering the lethal injection to either. Does that make me a cold-blooded murderer also? Apparently so, in the minds of some. So be it.

Oh, and that old guy? Either the defense lawyer was incompetent or UK law is FAR more different from US law than my research suggests. Juries are far and away the very best means of determining guilt or innocence, provided the lawyers and judge are competent, and indeed is one of the bedrock principles of the common law.

Best,

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by Bob Edwards:
There is zero--and I mean ZERO--doubt of their culpability or their mens rea.

But in an adversarial system if a defendant advances arguments against the mens rea (guilty mind) leg of the prosecution case (and the court - but not necessarily the jury - accepts this as evidential) then there has been *some* element of doubt introduced to the case.

Bob - do you recall the defence cases advanced by the two death row convicts and what shape they took?

Now we are getting somewhere - looking at "no doubt" rather than the current legal requisite of "reasonable doubt".

I'm not happy with "reasonable doubt" as a Jury can swing that but a guilty verdict followed up by a PROPER independent panel to determine ABSOLUTE conviction via modern-day technology could determine the qualification of the verdict.

I applaud those forum members who have suffered and shown compasion and frank honesty. There is good in your soul and hope in your heart. May your life be full and fun.

For the majority of society, there must now be an elevation in the level of legal safety.

All I was doing in posting the thread was asking where we do we go ?

I think that capitol punishment SHOULD be introduced - but with the appropriate safeguards for the innocent victims of OUR legal system, the guilty.

Protection is for everyone although it is the scum of the earth that force the good to create laws to uphold decency. The scum then bend the laws to suit........

I am anti capital punishment for the reasons put foreword by JeremyD early in the thread. I am also anti “shoot to kill” in all but the most extreme circumstances i.e. when all other means have failed. And if in Mr Toys taxi with a gun at my head, I would prefer the negotiator option before the sniper.
This does not mean that I am prepared to die for this person, but I would prefer to take the risk in order that we could both come out of it alive.
In a situation where a person is about to kill innocent people (adult or children) and no other option is available, then call in the snipers.

quote:

This is true, but it saves us wasting £££ a week keeping the scum alive inside jail. I mean, seriously, who really gives a toss about the lapses that allowed Shipman to top himself, for example?

FWIW some of the family’s of the victims of H. Shipman said they felt cheated by his suicide, a quote from a daughter of a victim "He has won again. He has taken the easy way out. He has controlled us all the way through and he has controlled the last step and I hate him for it."

One last point is that the finances always crop up. I do not think for one minute that any one convicted of crime of the type we are talking about should be kept in anything approaching luxury. I also think that it is unacceptable to assess the merits of any system of justice allowing cost into the equation. If cost of keeping some one alive comes into the debate it opens up a whole new can of worms

John.