Death penalty - for or against

[Sussex Shrimper]

Does this understanding of right or wrong extend to Sharia Law?

I would have thought that some of the more extreme interpretations of Shariah Law in practice today serve as shining examples of why we, as a civilisation, shouldn't base our own criminal law upon bloodlust and thirst for revenge.

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

Actually they wouldn't be - obviously, but as in the case, I believe, of Derek Bentley, there would be a posthumous pardon and any compensation would go to the next of kin.

So do you believe that in such an instance the state could be forgiven for the needless slaughter of an innocent man, as long as a few quid are put the way of his dependents?

Miscarriages of justice are a fact of life, it would be a question of when rather than if.

 

[steveo]

how should his young wife and 2 year old little girl be compensated for the loss of a husband and a father?????

Is that 5 questions?

They wouldnt. As covered earlier in the thread, if the poeple of this country were allowed a vote and voted for capital punishment, we would have to stand by the decisions of people who decide if someone will face the death penalty. Which also means we would have to accept any mistakes.

 

[OldBlueLady]

So do you believe that in such an instance the state could be forgiven for the needless slaughter of an innocent man, as long as a few quid are put the way of his dependents?

Miscarriages of justice are a fact of life, it would be a question of when rather than if.

If you read through this thread, I've made it quite clear all along that I am not voting either way because I don't consider it to be as clear cut as all that. The way I see it, as I've said repeatedly, is that for me the death penalty should only apply in 100% cast iron proven cases of mutiple killings as in the case of the Wests, Sutcliffe, Shipman, Brady, Hindley etc as listed in a pretty comprehensive list of serial killers on page 1 of this thread.

My response to compensation in the case of a miscarriage of justice which resulted in the death penalty having been served, was purely an explanation as to what I believe would happen should such an instance arise, as I said, I believed happened in the case of Derek Bentley.

 

[Gremlin]

He wouldnt. But as he wouldnt know he was due compensation the question is rather irrelevant.

Or rhetorical

 

[Gremlin]

Is that 5 questions?

They wouldnt. As covered earlier in the thread, if the poeple of this country were allowed a vote and voted for capital punishment, we would have to stand by the decisions of people who decide if someone will face the death penalty. Which also means we would have to accept any mistakes.

As I'm sure you would, without question, if you or someone close to you was wrongly convicted.

 

[Firestorm]

Is that 5 questions?

They wouldnt. As covered earlier in the thread, if the poeple of this country were allowed a vote and voted for capital punishment, we would have to stand by the decisions of people who decide if someone will face the death penalty. Which also means we would have to accept any mistakes.

Does this mean that the Court of appeal would be abolished on the basis that the people of this country have to accept any mistakes in the Law ?

 

[steveo]

Does this mean that the Court of appeal would be abolished on the basis that the people of this country have to accept any mistakes in the Law ?

No. The appeal gives them the chance to rectify the mistake, if need be.

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

No. The appeal gives them the chance to rectify the mistake, if need be.

But you said that the people of the country would have to stand by the decisions made by "the People" and accept the mistakes?

Accepting someone mistake means that you do not question it......so as Fire says, we would have no need for a appeal system.....

Hmmmm, communism here we come!!

 

[steveo]

But you said that the people of the country would have to stand by the decisions made by "the People" and accept the mistakes?

No I said the poeple who decide if someone should face a death penalty - which means Judges.

I realise you are fairly new to this board but do try and keep up!


errmm just kidding.

 

[Firestorm]

No I said the poeple who decide if someone should face a death penalty - which means Judges.

I realise you are fairly new to this board but do try and keep up!


errmm just kidding.

Now I am getting confused

if the poeple of this country were allowed a vote and voted for capital punishment, we would have to stand by the decisions of people who decide if someone will face the death penalty. Which also means we would have to accept any mistakes.

So the Judges in the original case decides someone's sentence, are these the the people who decide ? in which case we would have to stand by their decision and not appeal, or do we allow appeals but then stand by the decision of the appeal courts Judge assuming that the Appeal courts are the people who decide.
Or are the people who decide whether an appeal should be allowed the people who decide (judges also)...

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

If you read through this thread, I've made it quite clear all along that I am not voting either way because I don't consider it to be as clear cut as all that. The way I see it, as I've said repeatedly, is that for me the death penalty should only apply in 100% cast iron proven cases of mutiple killings as in the case of the Wests, Sutcliffe, Shipman, Brady, Hindley etc as listed in a pretty comprehensive list of serial killers on page 1 of this thread.

My response to compensation in the case of a miscarriage of justice which resulted in the death penalty having been served, was purely an explanation as to what I believe would happen should such an instance arise, as I said, I believed happened in the case of Derek Bentley.

Yeah, sorry - I probably jumped the gun and shouldn't have aimed that question at you. Emotive issue, huh?

I still respectfully disagree that there are instances where execution is appropriate, though.

 

[Pubey]

If you read through this thread, I've made it quite clear all along that I am not voting either way because I don't consider it to be as clear cut as all that. The way I see it, as I've said repeatedly, is that for me the death penalty should only apply in 100% cast iron proven cases of mutiple killings as in the case of the Wests, Sutcliffe, Shipman, Brady, Hindley etc as listed in a pretty comprehensive list of serial killers on page 1 of this thread.

My response to compensation in the case of a miscarriage of justice which resulted in the death penalty having been served, was purely an explanation as to what I believe would happen should such an instance arise, as I said, I believed happened in the case of Derek Bentley.

so what your saying is that you won't vote, but you're in favour of the death penalty (in very specific cases)? No offense, but even with that caveat it still means you're in favour of the death penalty (killing convicted criminals for certain crimes), and so why not vote?

 

[londonblue]

so what your saying is that you won't vote, but you're in favour of the death penalty (in very specific cases)? No offense, but even with that caveat it still means you're in favour of the death penalty (killing convicted criminals for certain crimes), and so why not vote?

Interesting. I read it the other way. She would be in favour if it were never possible to wrongly convict someone, and given that we all agree that can't ever be 100% possible all the time she would have to vote against.

Different people, different views...

 

[Pubey]

Interesting. I read it the other way. She would be in favour if it were never possible to wrongly convict someone, and given that we all agree that can't ever be 100% possible all the time she would have to vote against.

Different people, different views...

the post said that she would execute people committed of "100% cast iron proven cases of mutiple killings"... which sounds to me like she supports the death penalty. you can argue about what this actually means but she gave the names of Wests, Sutcliffe, Shipman, Brady, Hindley and so that suggests that she believes that proving these is possible.

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

No I said the poeple who decide if someone should face a death penalty - which means Judges.

I realise you are fairly new to this board but do try and keep up!


errmm just kidding.

I will do my best

 

[OldBlueLady]

Interesting. I read it the other way. She would be in favour if it were never possible to wrongly convict someone, and given that we all agree that can't ever be 100% possible all the time she would have to vote against.

Different people, different views...

That is exactly what I meant - an exceptional sentence for those tiny minority of exceptionally inhumane beings that pass for humans, who seem to take pride in their killings. Like I said, it's not clear cut yes or no for me so it's an abstain.

 

[londonblue]

so what your saying is that you won't vote, but you're in favour of the death penalty (in very specific cases)? No offense, but even with that caveat it still means you're in favour of the death penalty (killing convicted criminals for certain crimes), and so why not vote?

Interesting. I read it the other way. She would be in favour if it were never possible to wrongly convict someone, and given that we all agree that can't ever be 100% possible all the time she would have to vote against.

Different people, different views...

the post said that she would execute people committed of "100% cast iron proven cases of mutiple killings"... which sounds to me like she supports the death penalty. you can argue about what this actually means but she gave the names of Wests, Sutcliffe, Shipman, Brady, Hindley and so that suggests that she believes that proving these is possible.

That is exactly what I meant - an exceptional sentence for those tiny minority of exceptionally inhumane beings that pass for humans, who seem to take pride in their killings. Like I said, it's not clear cut yes or no for me so it's an abstain.

Told you so. Ner ner ner ner ner!