Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Wondering what the folks who are agaist the death penalty feel should happen to the guy in this news item
Death sentence for alligator child killer - Telegraph

according to the story the guy dumped a 5 yr old child in the Florida everglades to be eaten alive by the Alligators , does anyone feel the guy is deserving of a life sentance or should he go and sit on 'ole sparkys knee' (Florida still uses the electric chair...I think )

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

This horrid thing should get the worst death, that poor child!!
they should shove him in with the alligators and let him get what this poor girl got...an eye for and eye!!

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I think that the ideal sentence would be a suspended sentence – by a rope over the Everglades about 3 inches above the water.

Electrocution or whatever other method is used is far, far too quick.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

nah jambutty, make it 2-3 foot above upside down so he can see the teeth coming to get him!

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Why when they could keep tassering him. That would be a nice torture while he sees Big Al and his pals snapping at his legs while just out of reach. Failing that slow bleeding over a pond of hungry parahna while they jump up and nip of little bits. :D

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

How cruel you all are? This man should be shown sympathy and mercy, just like he showed to the child. I am fed up with the eye for an eye brigade, it should be live and let live forgive those that trespass against us, turn the other cheek.:mad:

No-one has the right to take the life of another, unless of course he is a coward that not only attacks the mother but also murders an innocent child. He as should all rapists and child molesters be forgiven and given the chance to repent their ways, thus proving themselves once more to be of use to civilised society.

Civilised? what is civilised about a society that allows someone that causes suffering of this kind to others to live, if a dog attacks it's put down, anyone that murders has given up the right to live.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Couldn't have put it better myself.

Well maybe I could, but I've already been threatened with a "thumping.":D

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

good point less but think if that kid would off been yours , i think that guy should have a slow death and suffer like the child did

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Less..........I am gutted but I have to agree with you on this one.......but tell no-one on pain of death :D :D :D

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Couldn't agree more Less.

Nobody has the right to take somebody elses life, regardless of what the person has done. Once you have someone locked up they no longer pose a threat and should thus not be murdered.

Reading this thread shocked me. I thought we lived in a civilised society? It sounded like a bunch of savage dogs tearing a lamb to shreds.

Come on people, we're better than that.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

No they don't have the right to take a life thay just do it regardless!! If you choose to take a life why should you be given a choice???

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

because we're a civilised society?

If someone puts a brick through my window I won't go round to their house and put a brick through theirs. I am better than that. Eye for an eye is nonsense.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Until it comes to a life IMHO! What is civilised about taking a life?

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Couldn't agree more. Whatever the crime, however horrendous, if we execute the criminal we descend to his level. The "eye for an eye" attitude ignores the more open and obvious "thou shalt not kill."

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

But he did KILL with no regard for anything or anybody but himself.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

The Death Penalty just doesn't sit well with me at all. It seems like an admission of failure of whichever legal system passes the judgement.

Yes there's the blah blah blah if it had been my child and so on and yes I would probably feel like having the bastard done away with. In reality tho, I know I would rise above those base feelings.

I'm a believer in not asking others to do that which I cannot or am not prepared to do myself. I certainly wouldn't and couldn't take a life.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

My problem with capital punishment is 3 fold.

First if you execute the wrong person how do you say "oops sorry"? Also look at the case of Derek Bentley, you cannot control a judge who loves to impose the most severe penalty.

Second capital punishment is nothing short of state sanctioned murder. If murder is against the law (and it should be) then how with a clear moral conscience can the public and the government sanction the murder of a criminal, no matter how sick or depraved he/she is, you are then pandering to the whims of vengeance rather than justice. Yes there has to be a deterrent and life imprisonment should mean that, when imposed.

Third, where is the deterrent if they have already killed to prevent them killing again and again, the old saying "may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb" somes it up well.

Also as an aside apart from my moral objections, why is the murder rate so high in the US if capital punishment is such a wonderful deterrent?

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Let us get all the fact's together, we have a "man" who has already served time for violent related crime. He does his time then goes on to commit these other crimes which he is called to court for. He thinks this girls mother is dead so decides to drop the child amongest some alligators and leaves her to die. Forgive me if I don't feel any sympathy but did he give the child or her mother any? I would imagine the answer is no, so why does he deserve our sympathy? I can't think of a single reason why the death penalty should not prevail in this instance.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

its not a deterrent , thats the whole point ......its a punishment , a punishment for being such an evil creature that has no hope of redemption or rehablitation, that you have lost/thrown away rights you had in a civilized society .

re. the U.S. I can only speak of conditions in my own State (California) here we have over 600 people on death row , people who have been found guilty of murder by jurors of their peers ,the same jurors who have to meet again in a separate mini-trial to decide on the sentance (if the death penalty should be applied or not) why so many ? .....because of a lack of Political and Judical will to carry out the juries decision, a system that panders to the electorate about being tough on crime and then refuses to carry out the will of the people by allowing multiple frivolous appeals by sleezeball lawyers who are paid for at taxpayer expense, e.g. there is nowhere in the execution chamber to sterilize the needle before a lethal injection......DOH..

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

However, it is touted as a deterrent as are most other forms of punishment. And I can not agree with "frivolous appeals"; surely one of the great strengths of America is its judicial system with all that goes along with the ideal of innocent until proven guilty. I hope that no one would seriously consider tinkering with, say, the Bill of Rights just so that one complete waste of skin should fry.

In any society, whatever the law, there will always be those who will commit horrendous crimes. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent this. Even if a convicted murderer were hanged, drawn, and quartered on CNN, the only result would be a demand from the public for more of this form of entertainment. The sickos would still crop up now and again to indulge in their fav form of mayhem, and the media and the public would revel in the sensationalism.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

It shocked me too Cyfr, to see the way some people would seem to take pleasure in the thought of making this man suffer as much as possible. That actually makes us worse than him. As far as I'm aware from the reports he didn't gloat over the way the child was killed or take any pleasure in the thought of her suffering. He was simply disposing of what was to him a burden, a problem. If we dispose of him in the same way - get rid of the problem, by the death penalty, then that would put us on a par with him, yet I can see where people feel that would be justifiable, but to actually dream up ways of making him suffer as much as possible, for the sole purpose of making him suffer as much as possible, drags us down below his level and shows that we are no better underneath the surface.


No, I don't feel any sympathy for him either and it's not about that. It's about justice. It's about dealing with him in a civilised manner, not for his sake but for ours. I don't have any sympathy for him whatsoever but neither do I want to descend to his level and advocate torturing him to death. Why should I let him turn me into a monster? Why should what he did make it right for others to do the same or worse to him? Doesn't that make us as bad or worse than him if we get some kind of perverse pleasure out of the thought of him suffering? Yes lock him away for life and make sure he can never do anything like that again, but don't take him as your example of correct behaviour. Don't learn from him and emulate him. That would make us far worse than he is.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I think if you re-read Less's post carefully you will find that its a usual Less type post and written in such a style that it comes across as one thing but says something different. e.g.
Err he showed teh child no sympathy or mercy whatsoever.

As these read unless I'm mistaken, Less is firmly on the eye for an eye bus.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

all child killers should not be allowed to roam this earth,they should be removed immediatly!! if it was your kid would you feel the same??....I DONT THINK SO!!!

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Yeah you're right.

Ah well. My argument still stands :D

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Panther this is precisely why the death penalty should not be applied. Because people want vengeance and not justice. You say child killers should be "removed immediately" who next? murderers of pensioners? paedophiles? murderer rapists? killers of people indangerous driving incidents?

They have all ruined lives but vengeance solves nothing, it's a return to the witchunt, lynch mob mentality, maybe if the criminal justice system actually imposed sentences that were stuck to (which they already have the facility to do so) then maybe this incessant clamour for blood would cease.

Oh and Steeljack are you saying thr American justice system IS based on vengeance then rather than justice and deterrence? Figures. That's why it still puts to death minors.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

It would appear that I have not been plain enough for a few of you.

My first paragraph was written as it was with plenty of sarcasm that obviously has been misleading.

I am not against the death penalty I am all for it and can't think of a more fitting end to such a cowardly beast as this 'man'!

My second paragraph, was a failing attempt to say as soon as we commit such a crime we forfeit the rights to continue our own lives.

The final paragraph was trying to put forward that a 'civilised' society should be brave enough to give these monsters the punishment they deserve.

I humbly apologise to all, both the pro-Capital punishment and the anti-brigade, I will in future threads make it very clear that I am a member of the Hang 'em high brigade!
:(

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I don’t have a problem with capital punishment for premeditated murder, regardless who the victim is. You take a life you forfeit your own. But with just one caveat. The sentence is not carried out until a suitable period of time after the sentence is passed. This is to give the defence an opportunity to bring forward new evidence and to take advantage of any new developments in forensic science. What is a suitable period of time? I would suggest a minimum of five years.

The Derek Bentley case is always brought up in such discussions, usually by people who weren’t even alive at the time or even bothered to do any research. Why not bring up the case of Ruth Ellis? http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/ruth.html

Bentley 19 and Craig 16 carrying a revolver broke into a warehouse on 2nd November 1952 with intent to rob. The result was that Craig shot and wounded one policeman and killed another. There is no dispute about those facts.

Bentley was an accessory to a crime that resulted in murder. Even though he didn’t actually pull the trigger, in the eyes of the law of the day he was just as guilty as the Craig who did. The law at the time decreed that murder was punishable by hanging.

Craig, being under the age of 18, could not be sentenced to hang so his sentence was to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure. Bentley who was over 18 was sentenced to hang and the sentence was duly carried out in accordance with the law of the day.

The fact that Bentley was poorly represented by his defence council is not a fault of the law.

http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/derek_bentley.htm

Murder – according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
• noun 1 the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another.
• verb 1 kill unlawfully and with premeditation.

In days gone by the state decreed that a convicted murderer would be hung. Thus making the action lawful. Thus the state could not be accused of murder only lawful killing. Whether the state should have that power is open to another debate but in the 1950’s it was the will of the people.

The “I may as well get hung for a sheep as for a lamb” argument applies to a very tiny majority of people – the hardened criminals who care nothing for others.

A question to all.

Why do you not commit murder, robbery, burglary, mugging, assault and battery, fraud etc?

Is it because it is against the law?

Or is it because of the fear of getting caught and punished?

I suspect that most people will reply both but with more emphases on the latter.

Many motorists break the laws on speed limits, secure in the knowledge that the chances of being caught are slim. I doubt if any of those same motorists would commit a ‘serious’ crime because they know that the chances of getting caught are high.

So in the main I would suggest that the majority of people do not go around committing crimes because of the fear of being caught and punished. Or in other words being caught and punished IS A DETERRENT. Thus the certainty of capital punishment if caught is a deterrent, except for a few who have scant regard for the law or other people.

There would be no law breaking IF it was CERTAIN that all law breakers would be caught and punished.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

As a victim of crime on 10 occasions I feel that I have more right to make my feelings known than those who have not been a victim and only spout what they think they will feel.

You do not know how you will feel until you have experienced it.

7 burglaries (8 if you count the night-time break in of a newsagents that I managed), 1 vehicle being torched plus several cases of vehicle vandalising, 1 mugging by some glue sniffing turd who wanted my bag of chips that left me battered and bruised and 1 GBH that put me in hospital.

The initial feeling is “I wish that it hadn’t happened”. Immediately followed by “I’d like to rip the thug’s heart out.” In other words revenge. Then the law abiding side of me kicked in and I hoped that the torags would be caught and punished.

Sadly only one burglar was caught and the thug who put me in hospital. I have no idea what happened to both.

When my son on his bike was hit by a drunken driver and put into hospital (Booth Hall) on a life support machine and unconscious for a week I wanted to tear the driver limb from limb. The last thing on my mind was ‘let the law handle it’. In the end I had to settle for the law taking its course but a 12 months ban and a fine was nowhere near enough punishment.

It didn’t take into account the victim’s weeks of loss of memory and the frustration and anger at having to learn simple tasks all over again. Not forgetting the 6 months of no school because of memory loss. The blinding headaches that still occur today.

It didn’t take into account the nightmare that I found myself in. Could I agree to switching off the life support if it came to that?

So unless you have actually been a victim of a serous crime you know diddly squat and your moral outrage towards capital punishment is a sham.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Willow I do understand where you are coming from and no I am not advocating that he should be tortured. These criminals who live where the death sentence is still used know that they could receive said sentence. So if they can't hack it they should take it into consideration before taking someone else's life. If the sentence is carried out he won't suffer unlike his poor victim and her mother who will spend her life suffering.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Just been reading the local rag. Looks like another murder conviction, this one thirty two years old is about to be overturned. The accused was a common criminal who later had the audacity to take his own lawyer hostage! Erin Walsh, who is dying of colon cancer, says "I'm no angel. Believe me, I'm a terrible person ... But I was in prison for a crime I did not commit." And this cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident. If we had capital punishment, this guy would have been swinging at the end of a rope 32 years ago.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I dont think this man deserves to live, what he did to this child is beyond belief for me, I certainlt dont see it as him disposing of something he didn't want, if it had been my child I would get great peace from knowing proper justice was done, I'm no monster, he is!

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Jambutty speaking as the father of a victim of crime (my stepdaughter was raped) I can honestly say I felt so let down when the police refused to prosecute. I can also say that I know the indivisual concerned and if I had come face to face with him in the months following I don't know what I would have done but would probably have ended up in gaol myself.

However looking back on that now I am glad I didn't, I am also glad that my stepdaughter didn't have to go through seeing me face court or have to go through the following investigation and questioning that would have followed and her reliving her ordeal. So get your facts right before you jump on your high horse and attack my moral stance.

We do not have the right to vengeance, yes prison and the judicial system are there as punishment but also as deterrent and for rehabilitation. I also do not feel that being a victim of crime gives anyone MORE RIGHT than anyone else to have a point of view. It gives you a personal insight as to how a victim feels but not to disparage anyone else's viewpoint who has not been in that unfortunate position.

Just for the record my view on capital punishment is that it is state sanctioned murder and if you are a christian, the commandment says Thou Shalt Not Kill. So ergo if you live in a christian nation how can you level that with capital punishment.

As an atheist I personally believe that killing in any form is morally wrong and that taking a life by any means is repugnant and in the case of capital punishment is lowering oneself to the level of the individual who committed the crime.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Just curious , does this also mean that you believe members of the Armed services are nothing more than trained killers , and the Forces members who took part in the Iraq invasion are guilty of taking part in mass murder ? :confused: :confused:

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Hopefully not starting a thread wander here,:rolleyes:.

I believe that the armed forces are a necessary evil. (my stepdaughter's fiance is currently in Afghanistan so I have an understanding as to how families of our servicemen and women are feeling). However Afghanistan and Iraq are 2 different ballgames. Afghanistan I can understand Iraq I can't as it appears to be Dubbya finishing what his father started.

So in answer to your question no and yes..

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

My sympathies to your stepdaughter for her ordeal.

However the fact that the police refused to prosecute means that they did not have enough evidence to get a successful conviction. But by your own admission you felt like doing the guy some mischief and the only thing that prevented you was not meeting him. You were vengeful so join me on the ground off your moral high horse.

However be that as it may. When a criminal is caught s/he is charged, tried and if found guilty, convicted with whatever punishment that the law decrees. Isn’t that vengeance being executed by proxy? What is punishment if it is not vengeance? We all want criminals to be punished according to the law. We all want vengeance.

When the death penalty was in force it was the law that decreed that for certain offences the penalty would be death by hanging. Thus you cannot have ‘state sanctioned MURDER’. People use the word murder because it is more emotive than simple killing. But it is wrong, totally wrong. It is state sanctioned lawful killing of a criminal who has been tried by his/her peers in a legitimate court of law and found guilty of a crime where the penalty is death by hanging.

As a victim of several crimes I do have the right to express my feelings about the incidents more so than someone has not been a victim. They can only think how they might feel about it. And personal bravado comes into the equation where people will try to show off how tough they are with making claims of what they would do. When it comes to the crunch few people act on their feelings be they real or assumed.

We are going to have to agree to differ on the capital punishment point but your moral outrage will not make me change my view. If someone sets out to murder someone, and remember that murder is the PREMEDITATED killing of another human, then they deserve to forfeit their own life.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I find it confusing how people can say that they believe the eye for an eye rule is fair as murdering someone is wrong...

If murdering someone is wrong, then why would you want to kill them? Oh yeh, its because you wouldn't be the ones actually killing them so what does it matter.

Go and live in America if you want the death penalty, and be the ones who are giving the lethal injection. Once you realise the horrors of it and see that it can be a slow death, you wont care what crime that person committed, because you'll never forget the images of administering the injection to someone, and being the one that kills them.

Why should a good person have to go to work and kill people everyday? The word 'KILL' can't ever be used in a good way, and neither can 'execute' or 'destroyed', and I doubt many of you refer to the term 'put to sleep when referring to a human being on death row'. And then their family have to watch their son/daughter/brother/sister etc die and why should they be put through that too?

It doesnt even save any money because theyre still on death row for years and years anyway and given chances to appeal.

I mean, forget america, why not go to saudi arabia or something and just stone people to death every day or something. They love eye for an eye there.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I agree we will have to agree to differ that is what makes debate on here excellent.

I did say however I was glad I didn't meet him and that vengeance would have been wrong. I am very pleased and if justice had had it's way I would have been happier. My statement on that was vengeance is wrong both for the victim and the offender.

However before the debate finishes I would like a few questions answered by those in favour of the death penalty.

1 How do christians in favour of the death penalty put it into context with the 10 commandments and Jesus's teachings of forgiveness?
2 How do you say sorry to a corpse if they have been wrongly convicted and executed?
3 Why do countries with a death penalty have a higher death per capita ratio than those without?
4 How you deter someone from killing again once they have committed the ultimate crime?


With regards to the you cannot have state sanctioned murder argument, murder is by your definition the premeditated killing of another human being, what then is passing the death sentence?

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Whether you like it or not or are prepared to admit it, wanting a criminal punished for their crime is exacting vengeance on them. But instead of doing it ourselves we let the judicial system do it on our behalf.

Let me see if I have got this right. Christianity stemmed from Jesus who was the Son of God. God handed down the Ten Commandments to Moses one of which was the ‘thou shalt not kill’ bit. It also stated ‘thou shalt not steal’ ‘nor covet thy neighbour’s wife’. There’s an awful lot of stealing going on and coveting.

Yet according to the Old Testament this God parted the waters of the Red Sea to let the Israelites through then let the waters close on the thousands of Egyptian soldiers pursuing them and they drowned. This God didn’t do this just once he did it twice. This God killed the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah when they refused to change their licentious and incestuous ways. This God ordered the Israelites to attack and take Jericho by force, meaning that they killed all and sundry. Jericho was the first of many cities dealt with in this way. This God struck down all who opposed him or blasphemed him.

Oh! I get it! The God was a ‘do as I say’ not a ‘do as I do’ God.

For centuries Christians have raised armies and attacked and killed their enemies for no other reason than to gain land or to foist their beliefs onto others. The last notable Christian to have killed millions, albeit by proxy, was Adolph Hitler and I do believe that he was a Catholic.

2. The question is academic because we don’t have the death penalty in the UK.

3. I have no idea. Which countries are you referring to? Us and the US? Some statistics would be helpful to back up your claim.

4. Lock them up until their death or hang them.

It is not my definition but that of people far clever and more thoroughly versed in the English language than me.

The passing of the death sentence is an action by a judge in accordance with the law and is thus a legal action just as much as handing out 10 years clink. Murder by definition is not a legal action.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Is that not the whole point of this debate? To have an academic discussion on the death penalty? You're in favour of it and hes asking you what you'd do when mistakes were made as you can't just release dead people from jail.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I'd argue that the last to kill millions is actually good old George W Bush.... And hes as loopy religious as they come.



As for the comment as to if we are wrong. If you've kept someone inside for 40 years then you could argue that you've actually been guilty of mental torture. After all being alive and knowing just what sort of life you should be having you could say is worse than being dead and not knowing. How do you compensate someone for effectively stopping them getting married, having kids, living life and having teh freedoms that you and I take for granted.

I always said that if I had a bad accident on my bike and was left in a vegetative state such that I couldn't communcate I'd rather someone pull teh plug as it would drive me out of my mind to be locked in that world with no way of making myself heard.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I think that the debate has gone beyond the point of a discussion of the death penalty. Even in the US which has the death penalty in many states, the citizen is protected, as are we in Canada thro our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, against cruel and unusual punishment. Some of the comments on this thread go way beyond this.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I haven't met at uni yet studying law with me that has said they would bring back the death penalty either, so i guess in theory, the academic answer to should we bring back the death penalty is no.

This debate has gone on time and time again on this forum and people are going to stand by their views, but no matter what they say, its not going to be brought back, so it isn't really worth discussing any more in my opinion.

Oh and willow this post is in agreement with you, not the opposite :) just in case you aren't sure why I quoted you.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Right I will take your answers in order.
1) God and other christians have maimed, slaughtered, executed, raped, pillaged and massacred in the past so it's ok for modern christians to do the same? Hmm touch of hypocrisy methinks.

2) Yes the question is academic but you are arguing in favour of the death penalty so it is a possibility that has to be considered. Ipso Facto I am still awaiting the answer.

3)Try this address here NationMaster - Murders (per capita) (most recent) by country
this gives a list of the main nations and there murder rates.

4) Right so executing a criminal for 1 offence will act as a serious deterrent to stop them killing 2, 3 or even more times. Hmmm yes I see your argument there.

I was only following your definition of murder, and by following that I am correct in calling capital punishment murder by the state.

Yes they may have been found guilty in a court of law, yes it may be a jury of peers, however the prosecution when it is pushing for the death penalty glorifies all the lurid detail in almost pornographic detail and is no better than a tabloid paper. All the details would have come out in the trial itself so why they need to dwell on it is pure sensationalism.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Playing devil’s advocate again are you?

Surely the whole point of a debate is to discuss issues that are relevant to the time. Obsolete issues I leave to the historians.

However to satisfy the curiosity of some people I will answer the question of “2 How do you say sorry to a corpse if they have been wrongly convicted and executed?”
You can’t. The best that can be done is to apologise to the corpse’s next of kin.

But there would be no need to apologise to anyone if certain safeguards were in place, as I have already explained in a previous post. But then who reads the whole thread before sticking their oar in? Some do although I suspect that many do not.

I would suggest that once a criminal is convicted of murder and the death sentence has been passed, it is not carried out for at least five years. This should be long enough for the defence team to launch appeals and seek out further evidence of innocence, if there is any, or challenge the validity of the prosecution evidence.

The police should be forced to reveal all the details of their investigation to the defence team and vice versa. Any forensic evidence should be available to the defence so that they can have it checked by an independent forensic analyst.

And finally the accused should HAVE to go into the witness box to be cross examined by both sides. Let the jury hear from the horse’s mouth so to speak.

OK! Who is going to be the first to trot out Stefan Kiszko who spent 16 years in prison after being wrongly convicted? Back in 1976 forensic and medical science was nowhere near as good as it is today. It is highly unlikely that such an incident could occur today. And it is today and tomorrow this discussion is about, not yesterday.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

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.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

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.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I don’t recall saying that it was OK for modern Christians to kill just because it happened in Biblical times. If you are going to put words in my mouth then do be so kind as to put the right words in.

Your link now puts some meat on the bones of your statement.

However what the statistics don’t say is that the US has a gun culture that is written into their constitution so the means of committing murder are more readily available. If you are going to compare the UK with another country you should at least compare it with a country that has similar gun laws that we have. What about Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Greece, Japan, Saudi Arabia etc.

The other point you have to take into account is the actual population. A large proportion of the population in the States consists of African descendants and Hispanic. Both groups traditionally did not view life in the same way as we do now. Life was cheap to them and it takes many generations to eradicate that attitude. Look what is happening in Africa today.

In fact many years ago life was cheap in the UK.

And then the USA was won, not with the plough but with the gun.

I have yet to see a dead person kill another. No facetious remarks about how a person having died from the Ebola virus can infect a living person and cause their death please. If we had capital punishment today it wouldn’t stop the hardened criminals but it would make many fringe criminals think again. Maybe not right away but as the hangings mounted up the message would go out.

Capital punishment was a lawful act as decreed by Parliament – therefore it cannot be murder. Murder is premeditated UNLAWFUL killing. So you are wrong to call capital punishment murder by the state. Lawful killing yes, murder no.

To get at the truth it may be necessary to reveal all the gory details. However in the UK and in real life the prosecution doesn’t push for the death penalty. Any judge worthy of the name would slap them down if they tried. You’ve been watching too many American court dramas. The prosecution’s job is to present the evidence in an attempt to prove the accused guilty. The defence’s job is to counter that evidence, if it can and establish the innocence of the accused. But the onus is on the prosecution to prove their case. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. The jury decides on the verdict after hearing all the evidence and the judge passes sentence. No one tells the judge what that sentence is to be except the tariffs as laid down by Parliament.

As a citizen of this land you are perfectly entitled to attend a murder trial or just about any other trial for that matter and see what happens in real life. I have and its not a bit like portrayed on TV and in films. You don’t get some smart Alec barrister presenting a coup de grâce to get the defendant off. You don’t get the drama.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Florida has lethal injection now.....the use of Old Sparky having been challenged. Same here in Georgia. Some crimes are so heinous that they deserve the punishment of death. This one fits the bill.

Of course, the U.S. already has a de-facto death penalty moratorium. With defense attorneys eking out appeals in drip, drip, drip fashion, it can take decades before sentence is carried out. I believe that the current method of lethal injection will be challenged at the Supreme Court. It is already wending its way up there.

The majority of Americans approve of the death penalty in certain cases. And, if a life sentence really meant life, juries might opt for that more frequently than they already do.

Then, of course, you have escapes. Even in high profile cases. Remember that one of the most infamous serial killers in U.S. history, Ted Bundy, escaped from jail twice - and went on to kill more women before he was finally captured and eventually executed.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

As an added note, we've had lawyers from the U.K. here in Georgia recently, including Richard Lissack, QC, and members of Clifford Chance and Outer Temple Chambers, seeking a stay of execution for one Jack Alderman - on death row since 1974 for the murder of his wife. According to Lissack, et al, Mr. Alderman is a great guy and not only should sentence of death be overturned but he should be released from jail forthwith. Oh, OK then.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Of course England has a constitution. It's not a document that one can buy in a bookstore, a nice thick Penguin classic, with "Constitution" written on it, but the centuries of common law, precedent, and statute law. And what form of govt does the UK have? A Constitutional Monarchy. And just because there is no clause called a fifth ammendment does not mean that it doesn't exist in England in fact and in practice.

And this silliness of having an accused forced to take the stand. How does one "force" if not by using the "duress" mentioned in another place in your post? And how does one force an accused to tell the truth? Thumbscrews?

And in a subsequent post you talk about the "law" as if it is the final word. That it somehow has the divine sanction of the decalogue. It is firmly in the English tradition where it began, and in all the legal systems of democratic countries, that some laws are, in essence, illegal. The idea of "ultra vires" gives the judiciaries the right to judge the legality of laws. The US supreme court is an fine example.

Ever since Nuremberg, the democratic communities of the world, seem to agree that just because a certain govt passes "laws" this does not mean that they are "legal" or "just" in the wider sense.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

England does not have a written constitution similar to the one for the USA. The nearest we have is the Magna Carta but even that is a long way from a proper constitution.

What we have is a set of laws that appear on a variety of documents generated over the years. See http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/british_constitution1.htm

The fact that we have a Constitutional Monarchy doesn’t mean we have a constitution. See http://www.royal.gov.uk/textonly/Page4682.asp

A prisoner does have the right to silence in England except in one motoring law, which has driven a coach and horses through that right. In fact there have been recent rumblings in Parliament to take away that right for all criminal charges.

If the best that you can do is make derogatory remarks about a suggestion, calling it silly, then you really must be scraping the barrel to try and some give validity to your point of view.

You obviously know nothing about being cross-examined in the witness box. No one forces anyone to say anything but with skilled questioning under observation of the whole of the court, a council will get at the truth much quicker. Refusing to answer a question can say more than the actual answer. After all doesn’t the accused get questioned by the police after being arrested? So what is the difference to being questioned in open court? I’ll tell you. The difference is that the judge, jury and everyone else will be a witness to the questioning. They will see that the questioning is fair and just and no recriminations afterwards that the prisoner was bullied into making a confession as has happened so many times. Talking about thumbscrews is just a facetious remark that people often employ when they haven’t got a constructive point to make and are arguing for arguments sake.

The law is the final word in England whether you like it or not. The laws of the land decree what we, the citizens, can and cannot do and also lays down the penalties if we are caught breaking the law. That sounds pretty final to me.

“decalogue” Now where did you dig that one up from? Did you think that you could baffle me with words that are hardly used these days? In any case it hardly applies to English law, which has nothing divine about it.

A legitimate law passed by a legitimate government cannot be illegal. It can be controversial or even contradictory with other laws but never illegal. You do understand the English language I presume.

As I stated before I don’t give a Tinker’s cuss about US laws or the US courts, supreme or otherwise. This is debate is about English law and references to any other country’s laws is an irrelevance. But then if you don’t have a constructive argument to put forward to add weight to your position then bring in irrelevances to try and confuse the issue. It’s an age old tactic.

Legal and just are two entirely different concepts. Some people may consider a law to be just and others may consider it to be unjust but if passed by a legitimate government it is legal. FULL STOP!

My view is neither right nor wrong, just mine. Some people may agree with it whilst others may not.

You can argue yourself until you are blue in the face but I have made my position clear on this subject and I have no intention of repeating myself endlessly to satisfy some warped argumentative psyche.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

In response to the case in hand. I am for the death penalty. Absolutely no qualms or reservations. And yes, I would have absolutely NO problem giving the injection or putting the noose around this animal's neck or putting a bullet in his bloody head.

I have a very hard time comprehending how people this things life should be spared and allowed a life of free room and board as the family suffers evreyday without having their justice.

I also, as a Bible-Believing Christian, again have no reservations nor any contradictions with either the Old Testament ("purge the evil from your midst") or the New Testament.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

When did this become a debate about English law ? the original question was what do people think would be a suitable punishment for the person mentioned in the Florida case .



Maybe if folks want to discuss the merits of "English" legal system they should start a new thread saying how good they think it is when a thug walks away from Court after beating up a 95 yr old

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Apologies , just seen the new thread by Bernadette

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

I believe that it was Stanaccy (post 19) who was responsible for drifting this thread onto English law by highlighting the case of Derek Bentley. The discussion then drifted into people calling state killing murder and it went on from there.

But then that is what happens to many threads. They get pulled away from the topic.

Re: Death Penalty , should this guy die ?
 

Maybe the problem is in the original question. It is not possible to discuss what to do in a particular case of murder without wandering to the question of capital punishment in general. Altho' perhaps not intended, the invitation to wander is there. And intended or not, the move from the specific to the general cannot be unexpected.