[jambutty]

Originally Posted by Eric

I just can not see how crime, shocking and horrendous crime, and how to punish it can be termed an "obsolete issue." Societies have been trying to come to terms with this since day one. As an issue, it is one that won't go away, and it is anything but obsolete.

Apologize to a wrongly executed person's next of kin! A letter from the Queen, saying "sorry we screwed up on this one." I can think of few punishments more cruel and unusual than putting a person who knows he is innocent on a gallows, putting a rope round his neck, giving him god's best wishes and pulling the lever. And then to inflict a slightly less cruel apology on his loved ones.

And the question of safeguards. They already exist. Absolute certainty we will rarely have.

And what is this about forcing an accused to testify. Damn, there goes the Fifth Ammendment and the versions of that wonderful provision that we have in our Charter. I would be surprised if any of our American Friends would go for such gutting of their Constitutional rights.

And cerainly, the police are better equipped to uncover evidence scientifically, and, as you say, it is unlikely that mistakes will be made. But in the case of an innocent man going to the gallows, the chair, or any equivalent, "highly unlikely" is just not good enough.

It isn’t crime that is an obsolete issue but a debate on capital punishment that no longer exists in the UK.

But then why let facts get in the way making a reply?

This may come as a great shock to you but here in the UK we don’t have a fifth or any amendments. We don’t even have a constitution.

When capital punishment was legal in the UK the judge would set a date for the execution, which was months rather than years away. This was to allow for any last minute appeals for clemency. That is a long way short of a minimum of five years.

Why shouldn’t the accused be forced to take the stand? After all he is the one being accused of a crime. Witnesses have to take the stand and some under cross-examination have been known to end up admitting that they lied. To be a successful liar you have to live the lie and it is one thing doing so amongst your mates but quite another in open court.

I don’t give a Tinkers cuss for US law, this is the UK.

There is nothing as powerful as being cross-examined to get at the truth. There is only one person who knows the truth about a crime – the person who committed it.

Go on tell me about false confessions made under duress in the interview room. That is totally different to an open court where the jury and everybody else attending, including people in the gallery will see and hear how the cross-examination is conducted. The judge and jury will decide if the defendant ends up confessing because he was bullied into doing so or he tripped himself up by lying.

Highly unlikely or the other way around highly likely is good enough. In criminal law a person is guilty as charged if the evidence against him is beyond reasonable doubt and judges have been know to accept a 10 – 2 verdict of guilt or innocence. So highly likely or unlikely is well established in law and acceptable.

Even in a civil court the verdict is based on the balance of probabilities. Sort of highly unlikely or likely! Not a certainty in sight.