death penalty

[Ginger]

I could support life without parole as an alternative to the death sentence if there were really no chance whatsoever of parole, pardon, appeal, etc. If, once the sentence were passed, it could not be changed by any means, including changes to the law or Constitution, then it would be an effective alternative.

It's substantially less humane than just executing someone, IMHO, but we drag out the process so insanely long now that it wouldn't be *that* much worse.

[GUT]

G'day Ginger

When you say "no chance of pardon" do you include when new evidence proves innocence? Often DNA.

[Robert]

Presumably DNA evidence that proved innocence would not necessitate a pardon because there would be nothing to be pardoned for. I think the phrase is "conviction quashed" or something like that.

I suppose in cases of long-term imprisonment there is always the chance that a key witness will be "got at" and change his/her testimony. Nothing is simple.

[GUT]

G'day Robert

The terminology depends on what country you are in.

In many countries there is a difference between "conviction quashed", usually by another court and equivalent to finding of "not guilty".

A pardon depending on where you are may mean either, "you done it but we forgive you" OR "you didn't do it and equally totally innocent."

[caz]

Classic left-wing tactic. "It ain't the murderers; I mean, they were only messing around when they decided to smash a 7 year old child's skull in with a brick and then stab the poor lass 37 times; it's 'the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade' that's the problem.

This country is so far ******* brainwashed I despair.

It's not a 'tactic' of any kind, FM. I was simply stating it as a fact that if we go by the figure you quoted of 45% against capital punishment in the UK, bringing it back is simply not going to have the desired effect (regardless of one's political views) - which is surely convicting as many killers as possible and taking them out of society permanently.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

So it's ok to HELP a convicted murderer go free just because you don't Beleive in the punishment?????

What ?

I wasn't talking about myself, Abby. I do wish people would read before their blood pressure goes sky high for no reason.

Once again, we cannot force jurors to show their colours beforehand or convict anyone against their principles (regardless of whether we think those principles stink). How would you deal with the 45% of potential jurors who are currently against the death penalty here in the UK? When bringing it back, would you change the law to allow majority verdicts of, say, seven to five?

I need to know how people see this ever working in practice in today's world, because I don't want killers left alive and free to do it again, by a crap or unworkable system, any more than you do.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Arguing that you shouldn't have the deathy penalty because certain jurors who don't believe in it wouldn't convict is like saying you should abolish a law because people break it.

If only that was what was being argued, Abby.

There is no sodding use in having the death penalty back if there is precious little chance of a judge getting to wear his black cap. We first need to address our jury system, and how realistic the prospect is of any group of twelve men and women playing ball. Simple as that.

Or is it simple at all?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi caz
If the jury's aren't to be trusted to do there legal obligation in your country then I guess one option would be go with a majority decision.


However, I am not really comfortable with changing the rules just to accommodate the possibility that jurors won't do there legal obligation. They should be held accountable in some way if they aren't honest. Some form of perjury charge perhaps would help encourage them.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's not a 'tactic' of any kind, FM. I was simply stating it as a fact that if we go by the figure you quoted of 45% against capital punishment in the UK, bringing it back is simply not going to have the desired effect (regardless of one's political views) - which is surely convicting as many killers as possible and taking them out of society permanently.

Love,

Caz
X

Are you saying that jurors of a left-wing disposition would return a verdict of not guilty in the event they thought otherwise? Isn't there a word for this sort of thing that would aptly sum up someone who reneges on his/her obligation as a custodian of the law on the grounds that they hold certain opinions that are contrary to the law?

It's a bit like me being on a jury and saying I'm not happy that they're not hanging from a noose so what's the point in convicting them? They may as well go free. Which, of course, I wouldn't; I'd accept that while the left boil my piss we live in a democracy and in the event the left holds court in this country then I just have to accept that we have a democratic process and my duty to this process is to abide by the letter of the law, whether or not I agree with certain aspects.

I can't think of a weaker argument for stalling the course of democracy, which is that the majority in this country want the death penalty, than the one you've just offered.

[Abby Normal]

Are you saying that jurors of a left-wing disposition would return a verdict of not guilty in the event they thought otherwise? Isn't there a word for this sort of thing that would aptly sum up someone who reneges on his/her obligation as a custodian of the law on the grounds that they hold certain opinions that are contrary to the law?

It's a bit like me being on a jury and saying I'm not happy that they're not hanging from a noose so what's the point in convicting them? They may as well go free. Which, of course, I wouldn't; I'd accept that while the left boil my piss we live in a democracy and in the event the left holds court in this country then I just have to accept that we have a democratic process and my duty to this process is to abide by the letter of the law, whether or not I agree with certain aspects.

I can't think of a weaker argument for stalling the course of democracy, which is that the majority in this country want the death penalty, than the one you've just offered.

Hi fm
Totally agree. And I think they call it jury nullification. It was what many said happened at the OJ trial.

[caz]

Are you saying that jurors of a left-wing disposition would return a verdict of not guilty in the event they thought otherwise? Isn't there a word for this sort of thing that would aptly sum up someone who reneges on his/her obligation as a custodian of the law on the grounds that they hold certain opinions that are contrary to the law?

Firstly no, not necessarily of a 'left-wing' disposition, unless you are saying that everyone further to the right is automatically pro-hanging. I don't care if there is a word for 'this sort of thing'; it would be a reality in need of sorting out, whether we like it or not, before we could rub our hands in glee as the first one swings. But you are putting the cart before the horse because it's not contrary to the law as it stands in the UK to be against capital punishment. It's all those of us in favour whose opinions currently run contrary to the law.

How do you think we could tackle the problem if 45% would not knowingly send anyone to the gallows in the event that democracy resulted in the law reverting to such a measure?

Once again, mine is not an argument for or against in principle. I merely ask how you are expecting it to work in practice.

Love,

Caz
X

[Errata]

The death penalty is not nearly as much of a right/left issue as it may seem. The right is pro law and order. The left is pro victims rights. So both of them line up as pro death penalty.

But the right is also pro life and tends to be more religious, and the left also is pro human rights, so those two line up as anti death penalty.

But the section of the population who is most for the death penalty are isolated physically or emotionally. They feel disproportionate fear and rage over an act that did not affect them in the slightest, and over identify with the victim. Sure. Everyone can get behind frying some guy who raped and killed kids. But mostly that's not what happens. Guy kills a fellow drug dealer, he gets the needle. A man who kills a couple who surprised him when he was robbing the house, he get's the chair. Woman shoots a convenience sore owner for hitting the silent alarm, she gets executed. These aren't the horrifying monsters people scream about. These are criminals who probably have a very understandable detachment from the idea that life is sacred.

The first time a guy gets busted for possession with intent to distribute, he becomes 80% more likely to be involved with a murder. Murderer, victim, witness, accessory after the fact, we don't know. So that arrest determines the course of his life. And then ten years down the road he kills a supplier. Suddenly he's a monster who deserves to die? Or is he just a criminal like any other criminal? The fact that he killed someone doesn't make him special. It doesn't mean he's a different person, and it doesn't deserve sudden acute attention by the public. This guy was a murderer 10 years before he killed someone. So suddenly deciding this guy is an animal that needs to be put down is shortsighted to say the least. Crime, like anything else, has next logical steps. And murder is always one of those next logical steps. So maybe society could have saved the victim if we had killed this dealer when he was first busted. And maybe if we kill them immediately we can spare the life of a fellow inmate that this guy is 30% likely to kill one imprisoned.

But despite the fact that this guy was a dealer who killed another dealer, something rabid pro execution guys cannot identify with, know little about, and likely need not fear ever being a victim of that crime, they go NUTS. I swear they are like shrieking girls when they see a rat. It's just a rat. Calm down. The guys not a monster. Sure maybe he deserves judicial execution, but the leaping on chairs and squealing when the guys name pops up doesn't serve your cause. How about saving the hysteria for some guy who's earned the hysteria? Not some guy whose fate was sealed long ago. I mean, if you really want to shriek about dealer on dealer homicide, why not get out there and try to prevent it? Why not try to change the odds? It's actually not that hard. It simply requires resources they don't have.

[DVV]

Personally I'm for death penalty by lethal injection. Of Spanish rosé wine.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The death penalty is not nearly as much of a right/left issue as it may seem. The right is pro law and order. The left is pro victims rights. So both of them line up as pro death penalty.

Not in this country, Errata.

The left are pro victims rights?! Christ. They're up in arms in this country because our criminals can't vote.

They're not far off campaigning for fostering a criminal. Everyone must have one and love it like your own son because, in the words of these virtuous human beings: we are all human beings after all.

Well, yes, we are all human ******* beings, and it's hardly plumbing the depths of human wisdom in order to establish this fact; but some of us don't swan around stabbing people to death.

I suppose the stance from the right is this: yes, we are all human beings and as such act responsibly and respect your neighbours as surely we have an obligation as a human being; otherwise there must be a punishment to be exacted because we just can't have everyone who feels the urge to destroy things destroying things. Then where would we be. The left are entirely different. They tend to think criminals are a part of our society in the same vein as law abiding citizens and this necessitates leniency and blind faith in the principle of rehabilitation. Utterly divorced from reality would some it up quite nicely.

[caz]

I think your point has just been made for you, Errata.

The one about shrieking girls when they see a rat.

Someone needs blood pressure tablets.

Love,

Caz
X