Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bedlam breakout

the death penalty

437 posts in this topic

Newspapers being newspapers I imagine there is a bit of exaggeration thrown in.

But at the core of it lies the truth. If they decide we cannot keep people like the Ripper locked up indefinitely, then that's that.

That's the other part that was ignored by the media.  The ECHR did not say that you cannot keep people locked up indefinitely but did say you must give them a review occasionally.  That review can be short and sweet with a "nope, still no chance" verdict as long as you are objectively fair in that decision.  In reality, anyone with a whole life sentence will never get released even if they're given yearly reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we base our response to repugnant, evil murderers on what allows Grace Dent to sleep at night?

She doesn't lose any sleep about children like April Jones being killed by such people, what's *really* important is how we treat the murderers. Insane

 

That's not the point she's making at all, John.

 

Opposing the death penalty - as I do - does not automatically mean that I approve of people who kill children, or anyone else for that matter.

 

If the death penalty was effective in any way shape or form in preventing people from killing children or anyone else, it is likely it would never have been abolished in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, as I have stated before, I know you won't prevent certain sick people from doing stuff.

It's about whether it is justified that they lose their life by committing such acts. I don't see the benefit in keeping amoeba like that baby killer alive, just get rid.

And I don't buy the argument that it 'makes us as bad as them', not for a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, as I have stated before, I know you won't prevent certain sick people from doing stuff.

It's about whether it is justified that they lose their life by committing such acts. I don't see the benefit in keeping amoeba like that baby killer alive, just get rid.

And I don't buy the argument that it 'makes us as bad as them', not for a second.

 

I understand your viewpoint, even though I don't share it. But I'll never be convinced the death penalty is the answer to anything. I don't think it would save any lives and I don't think it would save any money. Imagine the cost of the endless appeals against it in each and every case. It would make a handful of lawyers even richer than they probably already are. So, if it doesn't prevent crimes and it doesn't save money, and leaving aside the potential for miscarriages of justice which can never be completely ruled out in a system run by fallible human beings, that just leaves vengeance as a reason for having it, and I'd rather that wasn't part of our justice system at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yet again another week of news bulletins full of storys of child killers and other murder trials, same next week? and the week after? and.......................................................................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that 7 week old baby that lee davison  assaulted and killed? who was there to protect its human rights? am sick of this argument, society is there to protect not pander to its cancerous citizens, like any other cancer for gods sake eradicate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I'll never be convinced the death penalty is the answer to anything. I don't think it would save any lives..........

In the early part of the 20th century, firearms were a bit easier to get than now (probably thanks to two world wars) and were being used in crimes.  The courts began to use the 'joint enterprise' prosecution, that states that if two or more people are acting in concert to perform an unlawful act, and one of those persons commits a murder,  then all parties concerned will be tried for that murder, whether they took part in the murder or not.  If you read some of the histories of the old gangs, and Scotland Yard memoirs, it is frequently mentioned that this led to gang members searching each other before they went out on a job to make sure that one of them wasn't armed with a gun or knife.  They didn't mind hitting someone over the head with a cosh but if a weapon was used and a life taken, they were all in the poo, so I think that the fear of the death penalty in those instances probably did save some lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the early part of the 20th century, firearms were a bit easier to get than now (probably thanks to two world wars) and were being used in crimes.  The courts began to use the 'joint enterprise' prosecution, that states that if two or more people are acting in concert to perform an unlawful act, and one of those persons commits a murder,  then all parties concerned will be tried for that murder, whether they took part in the murder or not.  If you read some of the histories of the old gangs, and Scotland Yard memoirs, it is frequently mentioned that this led to gang members searching each other before they went out on a job to make sure that one of them wasn't armed with a gun or knife.  They didn't mind hitting someone over the head with a cosh but if a weapon was used and a life taken, they were all in the poo, so I think that the fear of the death penalty in those instances probably did save some lives.

 That logic leads to; if anyone is involved in a street fight and someone dies everyone involved should be hanged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That logic leads to; if anyone is involved in a street fight and someone dies everyone involved should be hanged.

Why does it? A street fight happens spontaneously. Setting out to rob/murder someone doesn't.

There is a huge difference between the following scenarios:

A) Group of people A meet group of people B on stag do in Blackpool. Fight ensues, person cracks head on pavement and dies. Terrible but not pre meditated murder.

B ) Gang of people set out to rob someone in a big house, householder wakes scuffle ensues, householder dies in fracas.

c) Gang of people set out to rob shop armed with shot guns. Tell shop owner to give them the money or they will shoot and do so, also kill attending police officers.

Only C would be a possible contender for the death penalty in my book but even then not definite.

D) You don't want to hear D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 That logic leads to; if anyone is involved in a street fight and someone dies everyone involved should be hanged.

What if, for example, five people had identical guns and fired randomly and recklessly into a crowd. One person is shot dead, but there is absolutely no evidence to prove which gun fired the fatal shot.

 

Do you think that all five should be found guilty of the killing, because of their collusion in the act that led to the death, or do you think they should all be found not guilty, because none of them can be proved to be individually directly responsible for the death?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if, for example, five people had identical guns and fired randomly and recklessly into a crowd. One person is shot dead, but there is absolutely no evidence to prove which gun fired the fatal shot.

 

Do you think that all five should be found guilty of the killing, because of their collusion in the act that led to the death, or do you think they should all be found not guilty, because none of them can be proved to be individually directly responsible for the death?

so you've been reading about the featherstone massacre then, or maybe bloody sunday

 

 

it's an interesting theory, but even with old fashioned ballistics methods its easy to find which gun fired d a shot

 

at thevery least they have all committed  a  menu of offences which would be eqasy to secure a conviction for that can carry life sentences

 

firarm offences

attempted murder

conspiracy

 

 

and probably more.

Quite rightly it is up to the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If they can't prove who committed the murder well we have to live with that in the name  of the broader principle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of us, except the person who ended up dead.

quite

 

but thats true whatever happens

 

at the very least all of these people are guilty of attempted murder.

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence. Attempted murder has it at the top end of its tarrif. Shooting guns randomly into a group of people easily qualifies for a life sentence.

 

 

edit: the point is to find people guilty beyond reasonable doubt...its a foundation block of justice in any civilised country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: the point is to find people guilty beyond reasonable doubt...its a foundation block of justice in any civilised country

 

And that's a point you should remember when judging long dead Rugby League officials.

 

I would hate to accuse you of double standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's a point you should remember when judging long dead Rugby League officials.

 

I would hate to accuse you of double standards.

if you think that is the case then feel free: you are entitled to your opinion, and I wouldn't take it personally, we've known each other long enough.

 

a case of murder:  and refences in history books to someone who has a major trophy named after them and discussing it are hardly comparable.

 

there many many cases of wrong doing-or in the case of Sunderland alleged inappropriate beliefs being raised after the event, sometimes long after the event

 

Sunderland's putative racism is so low down the scale as to be hardly visible in the world oiutside rugby league

 

but if you are invoking murder, then allow me to invoke Stuart hall, Jimmy Saville, etc etc. It is only because you are comparing the alleged attitudes of Sunderland with murder to illustrate a principle(a poor illustration if I might say so), that I have mentioned these people.

 

Your question was about what should be done in the event of a murder being committed in certain circumstances and what should be done about it. I gave you a civil, relevant and informed answer based on my experience in the criminal justice system. relevant observations regarding my response would have been interesting and stimulating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Joint venture" came about because you could have a murder committed by multiple individuals but only the one who struck the "final blow" could be deemed guilty of murder. It was generally impossible to do this (largely because it's very hard to prove which blow was actually fatal) and thus people literally did get away with murder.

 

Now you just need to prove that a murder was committed and person X and Y were part of it and thus guilty of murder. A much better situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite rightly it is up to the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If they can't prove who committed the murder well we have to live with that in the name  of the broader principle

It's rather more likely that all of them are somewhat responsible. Gun shots are a different matter as one shot can kill and only one person will have fired the shot but stabbings are something else. A person might be stabbed 20 times by 5 assailants but no one stab wound can be clearly identified as the fatal blow. In the past this meant that all five would get off with something like GBH or assault rather than murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's rather more likely that all of them are somewhat responsible. Gun shots are a different matter as one shot can kill and only one person will have fired the shot but stabbings are something else. A person might be stabbed 20 times by 5 assailants but no one stab wound can be clearly identified as the fatal blow. In the past this meant that all five would get off with something like GBH or assault rather than murder.

that's right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Hitchens writing in the Mail on Sunday.

"They're right jail is to cruel for murderers"

He argues that locking someone up for life is inhumane.

He states that in the last 10 years there have been 724 suicides, 90 of those being murderers serving life sentences

He states " In my view those 90 were killed by penal liberals who didn't have the guts to execute them but were happy to let them die of despair. Is that supposed to be civilised?"

That's his view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been on our local news.  In a village near Hemel Hempstead there has just been a murder.  The suspect has served a term in prison for manslaughter, upon release committed a murder, and now he's out on day release he's allegedly committed a third separate killing.

 

http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/local/manhunt-update-little-gaddesden-murder-suspect-was-on-day-release-from-prison-and-fled-scene-in-a-taxi-1-5286287

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been on our local news.  In a village near Hemel Hempstead there has just been a murder.  The suspect has served a term in prison for manslaughter, upon release committed a murder, and now he's out on day release he's allegedly committed a third separate killing.

 

http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/local/manhunt-update-little-gaddesden-murder-suspect-was-on-day-release-from-prison-and-fled-scene-in-a-taxi-1-5286287

its only Monday and all ready its news bulletins full of routine murder and evil like the poor girl in blackpool lured to such horror from facebook, no doubt that kid will be learning his human rights right now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been on our local news. In a village near Hemel Hempstead there has just been a murder. The suspect has served a term in prison for manslaughter, upon release committed a murder, and now he's out on day release he's allegedly committed a third separate killing.

http://www.hemeltoday.co.uk/news/local/manhunt-update-little-gaddesden-murder-suspect-was-on-day-release-from-prison-and-fled-scene-in-a-taxi-1-5286287

File this under 'unlucky'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor murderer is obviously in need of an extended course of counselling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Describing how he had been searching another room for valuables, he added: “I heard my uncle say he was going to kill him. He shouted it to me and he just sounded normal so I didn’t believe him.

“I heard a thud – like something hitting on the ground. He had no reason to do it so I thought he was joking about.

“Afterwards he came out holding the crow bar and said ’don’t look’.

“I could see past him and when I saw Mr Thomas’s head and face, I ran.

“He wasn’t in a good way and blood was coming out of his mouth.”

 

 

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-accused-murdering-llywelyn-thomas-5114616

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, a real stand-up individual, and the perfect poster boy for the nonsensical arguments about life imprisonment being a deterrent.

 

If this animal had been shot 30 years ago, there would probably still be a few more decent people walking around instead of him.

 

Ridiculous.

Do you want to think that one through properly and explain the glaring inconsistency in your argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. I said what I said, and I don't see any reason to change it now.

 

Anyway, it looks as though you are willing to have a try, so off you go.

Ah the "I've said something obviously stupid so I'll sulk until it goes away" defence that you do so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017