death sentence in the uk?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I'd like to read a bit more of that "ass-typing", if it's not too much trouble...

It seems the only sensible thing. :huh:

---

Thank you, my arse has been in particularly good form lately.

ha. and that's not even out of context :ph34r:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Btw this discussion of "there is no such thing as no doubt" is bullshit.

If someone is sitting minding their business on live TV and a fella comes up and slits that person throat, he's guilty with "no doubt".

---

The "absolutely no doubt" as opposed to "beyond reasonable doubt" refers to the burden of proof.

Would you kill a man based on television evidence. Are you 100% sure (not 99.999999999 etc) that what you see on TV is accurate. Are you so convinced that it couldn't be faked, that no-one could lie. Are you so convinced by identification evidence that you have not the slightest doubt of it's accuracy. Bearing in mind that absolutely means just that, no doubt whatsoever, no matter how small.

vidcc has already told us this, that he would kill a man, based on his confidence that your media report thing with absolutely no doubt. I'm surprised you feel the same way.

---

I sure would although I would like an alternative that does not drain the victims substantially by having them pay for the criminal for the rest of their life nor kills them.

There are too many instances of 100% guilt. Video coupled with dna coupled with confessions with numerous witnesses or 2 out of 3, 3 out of 4....blah, blah, blah.

In many cases I don't subscribe to SnnY's far-fetched theories although the OJ case intrigues me.

Video can be tampered with, DNA evidence can be contaminated and even if it isn't is not 100% reliable. Eye witnesses make mistakes.

100% guilt does not mean proven with absolutely no doubt.

I return to my earlier point, how do you know that there are caes which are 100% proven. By reading reports, watching tv or listening to the radio. I take it you also believe your media are totally accurate and reliable. One assumes the same "facts" are reported by everyone.

If not, then there is some doubt as to what is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Video can be tampered with, DNA evidence can be contaminated and even if it isn't is not 100% reliable. Eye witnesses make mistakes.

100% guilt does not mean proven with absolutely no doubt.

I return to my earlier point, how do you know that there are caes which are 100% proven. By reading reports, watching tv or listening to the radio. I take it you also believe your media are totally accurate and reliable. One assumes the same "facts" are reported by everyone.

If not, then there is some doubt as to what is correct.

---

Yeah if all those things work together then there has to be a vast conspiracy straight out of a movie.

I saw a person's brain blown out (got bits of brain on me). They were both friends of mine. I believe the shooter should have been put to death. He even killed someone in prison later with a shank. Before he was caught he shot and killed someone else and wounded 2 others.

He was convicted without my testimony since "I and another friend of mine were never there" so to speak.

There's also this fella (a convicted sex offender) who supposedly killed the mother, boyfriend, and 10 year-old son (something like that) and kidnapped the younger daughter and son, killed the son and sexually molested the daughter over and over (she survived).

Maybe he really didn't do it but so far from what I heard, saw, on TV and read, it ain't lookin to good for him. It's one of the worst cases of home invasion I ever heard of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Video can be tampered with, DNA evidence can be contaminated and even if it isn't is not 100% reliable. Eye witnesses make mistakes.

100% guilt does not mean proven with absolutely no doubt.

I return to my earlier point, how do you know that there are caes which are 100% proven. By reading reports, watching tv or listening to the radio. I take it you also believe your media are totally accurate and reliable. One assumes the same "facts" are reported by everyone.

If not, then there is some doubt as to what is correct.

---

Yeah if all those things work together then there has to be a vast conspiracy straight out of a movie.

I saw a person's brain blown out (got bits of brain on me). They were both friends of mine. I believe the shooter should have been put to death. He even killed someone in prison later with a shank. Before he was caught he shot and killed someone else and wounded 2 others.

He was convicted without my testimony since "I and another friend of mine were never there" so to speak.

There's also this fella (a convicted sex offender) who supposedly killed the mother, boyfriend, and 10 year-old son (something like that) and kidnapped the younger daughter and son, killed the son and sexually molested the daughter over and over (she survived).

Maybe he really didn't do it but so far from what I heard, saw, on TV and read, it ain't lookin to good for him. It's one of the worst cases of home invasion I ever heard of.

---

Killing him would do what, get the revenge that vidcc wants. Fair enough if that's the kind of society you want.

We don't, therefore we don't have a death penalty. We don't want to emulate people like that, we want to be civilized.

They aren't "far-fetched" theories, forensic evidence turns out to be fooked all the time, eyewitnesses are often crap, and even live footage can give you the wrong impression (for instance, having two people, one outside the picture, one on camera, fire a gun at the same time from roughly the same angle, is going to look as if the one that was on camera hit whatever the person outside the picture was aiming at).

And the worst part of it is that people trust it far too much, sometimes.


Any society today needs to put people in prison, the situation would be impossible otherwise, but at least, if there is no death sentence, no one dies for a crime they haven't commited just 'cos the system is flawed.

I don't know how often it happens, maybe it isn't very often at all, but it still does. Gven the nature of your legal system, and the available technology, it's a certain thing.

Please bear in mind that it was your countryman who suggested the death penalty was OK when there was "absolutely no doubt", it was one of mine who agreed with it. Tho' how he can support it (capital punishment) when you still work to the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof is beyond me.

I was simply trying to explain that, as long as he used the word "absolutely", then that was a virtual and practical impossibility.

There are those of us who take the position that it is never right. Certainly not as a form of societal revenge. That is simply barbaric.

It would not surprise me if those who support it's use also described as barbaric the removal of a thief's hand as a form of punishment. Even tho' that is as nothing compared to the taking of his life. His only life in the view of our atheist friends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

They aren't "far-fetched" theories, forensic evidence turns out to be fooked all the time, eyewitnesses are often crap, and even live footage can give you the wrong impression (for instance, having two people, one outside the picture, one on camera, fire a gun at the same time from roughly the same angle, is going to look as if the one that was on camera hit whatever the person outside the picture was aiming at).

And the worst part of it is that people trust it far too much, sometimes.


Any society today needs to put people in prison, the situation would be impossible otherwise, but at least, if there is no death sentence, no one dies for a crime they haven't commited just 'cos the system is flawed.

I don't know how often it happens, maybe it isn't very often at all, but it still does. Gven the nature of your legal system, and the available technology, it's a certain thing.

---

Well it is far-fetched.

You often do that SnnY. You did the same in the gun thread.
I should call you Fire Marshall Bill. :lol: :lol:

Pick and choose an example that bolsters your argument. I could tell you that a fella killed Jay Leno on live TV while the studio audience watched and you'll say "but, but, but". Butbutbut STFU. :dry:

I think the legality of what evidence can be used to put someone to death needs to be strengthened. I mean for all I know there are folks on death row because of circumstantial evidence.

At least JP's view of state :ermm: sponsored murder has more teeth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Please bear in mind that it was your countryman who suggested the death penalty was OK when there was "absolutely no doubt", it was one of mine who agreed with it. Tho' how he can support it (capital punishment) when you still work to the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof is beyond me.

I was simply trying to explain that, as long as he used the word "absolutely", then that was a virtual and practical impossibility.

There are those of us who take the position that it is never right. Certainly not as a form of societal revenge. That is simply barbaric.

It would not surprise me if those who support it's use also described as barbaric the removal of a thief's hand as a form of punishment. Even tho' that is as nothing compared to the taking of his life. His only life in the view of our atheist friends.

---

Who is your countryman?

I think it's barbaric on some levels to have victims pay for criminals welfare.

"You killed my 5 year-old son...go to sleep in warmth and have a meal"