Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Yes. But only on the murderers, not on innocent. There is a difference
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Yes. But only on the murderers, not on innocent. There is a difference
Prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
They are old school, "eye for an eye"-type people. I reckon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat
Some of the same crowd are prolly against abortions as well.
as far as i see the difference between "murderers" and "innocent people" is the ability to pre-meditate and carry out a killing of a defenceless personQuote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
It's all stupid anyway, today there isn't one legal system on the planet that's good enough to ensure that only the guilty will be executed, so, in order to spare the lives of innocents a death penalty isn't feasible even if one would consider killing the guilty to be justice.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
IMO, it doesn't matter if only one person in a hundred or more is wrongfully executed, it still isn't worth it.
naive question - but has this question / issue not been debated countless times over the last few decades?
was there not a debate about death penalty in uk ages ago?
it seems the conclusion is still the same - disagreement due to the value of life?
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
I am pro innocent life. (abortion issues and medical things aside) and the fact that we only get one makes the taking of an innocent worse.
Take Sarah Payne...Someone that believes in god can take comfort in the fact that she would be in heaven or some other afterlife.... I don't have that.
Knowing that the guilty person will have no afterlife is a bonus and an entirely just punishment for someone that ended the "one life" of an innocent.
This is my belief and I stand by it..... prove there is one and I will change my mind. But as that can't happen I feel secure in my belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
I used to use less obvious in my words but I was accused of being agnostic so now I make it clear i am an athiest. :)
1. That makes you as bad as them.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
2. What if they are innocent, found guilty often does not equate to "did it".
3. In which case you are emulating the ethics of murderers, while dealing with innocent people.
At least you are honest and admit that it is a revenge thing. Even if it does mean you are willing to kill innocent people.
That's what he's fucking saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
You're the one who'se willing to take the risk, with other people's.
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Where have I said we should risk executing innocent people?
I already set the level at no doubt of guilt. I have stated on other threads that the system we have here at present needs to be tightened to remove the possibility of executing an innocent person. All they have to do is raise doubt no matter how thin to remove death as an option. Just beyond reasonable doubt isn't good enough.
So you believe then.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Not being a religious sort of person like yourself, believing that what others believe in isn't believable seems sort of silly to me, but to each their own, and so forth.
it's practically impossible to prove there's no doubtQuote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
But not impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
We have a case here where a man was due to appear in court on a rape charge. He escaped by killing his guard, taking her gun and in his escape killed several others including a judge.
There is absolutely no doubt he did it.
edit:
But if there cannot as you suggest be a case with no doubt then why are you arguing as there will never be a death sentence issued
I take it then that you want the death penalty removed for only "reasonable doubt" cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
ie you want the death penalty removed in the US.
If so why would we want it in the UK.
i don't believe that even if there isn't doubt every so often, the guilty should be killed
OK let's even look at it from a practical viewpoint.
If you introduce no doubt then you must also keep reasonable doubt - everyone agree.
Then the Judge must instruct the Jury something like this.
If you find him guilty with absolutely no doubt, no tiny iota of doubt, not even one of you. Then return a no doubt verdict and I can sentence the accused to death.
If you return a reasonable doubt verdict, then I can sentence the accused to a maximum of life.
Do you really think that 15 people would all be willing to say "yes, there is not the slightest doubt that this person is of sound mind and that they premeditatedly murdered another person and I am willing to see them die because of it".
Maybe in your country but I don't think so in mine. Which is what we are talking about after all.
But, if he's found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, that would make it unfair not to convict others that have been found guilty of the same crime to the same sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
And since, in the real world anyway, no court is perfect, there is bound to be more than one wrongful conviction, and some will look, at the time, as if there isn't a doubt the right person was caught.
Those who have been wrongfully condemned have a chance of having a life if they are later proven innocent in a society without death penalties, this won't happen if they already are dead and buried.
SnnY, see my two verdict solution.
It rox.
It's definitely better, but somehow I think it'd still be fallible.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
Maybe I need to have a little more faith in people, tho' :unsure:
It be better because it would never happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Serpently knot hear.
I think our system is too lax and open to error so you take this part correctly. I also don't think we should execute those under the age of majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
No. I support it but think the system that leads to it needs fixing. I am very specific about its use as a punishment and do not give it blanket support as it stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
You don't have to have it. As I already explained I raised the topic because Britain only recently withdrew it for treason even though it had been abolished for other capital crimes long before. And the issue was these particular home grown terrorists being "traitors"Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I am fine with anyone that objects to capital punishment on moral grounds. I just don't share those morals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
How can you support it at all whilst it is still based on a "beyond reasonable doubt" proof. Which is what your country has (as far as I know).Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I object to it on two grounds.
1. Moral
2. We get it wrong and innocent people die.
Taking your principle in mind. If someone stands accused of rape and their DNA was found inside the rape victim. If there was the slightest doubt in other aspects of the evidence then they should be found not guilty. Would I be correct in assuming that?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Each case is taken on it's own merrit...yes it's unfair that a no doubt case gets death when in all likelyhood the one with beyond reasonable doubt did it but gets life, but then that's a risk you play when you take an innocent life....tough luckQuote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
that's why we have appeals
I support it in principle under my given criteria. Should I oppose that principle because it isn't how it is right now? :blink:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I don't share your moral objection and the no doubt part removes the "getting it wrong"Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
You can't say it could never happen. But if as you believe it couldn't, you get to never have executions anyway..so why the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
So you don't support it in practice and would not have it available for the "reasonable doubt" proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Ergo you are against capital punishment, until the US brings in an "absolutely no doubt" system.
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
I have two objections.
Unlike you, I am unwilling to emulate the ethics of murderers, no matter who I am dealing with.
NO.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
We have cases where there is no doubt already, I support it for those. I do not believe those cases should get a pass because others are only beyond reasonable doubt. I have already said I think beyond reasonable doubt is not good enough...do I need to say it again?
What would you do if you were in the army and ordered to kill someone?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I see a difference in ethics..the murderer has no problem taking innocent life. I do have a problem with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
I am fine with your belief that all killing is wrong even though i don't share that belief.
I don't accept the rest about risk of executing innocent people as my criteria requires reform to eliminate that risk
Edit:
If you oppose it on moral grounds why would you need a second reason? :unsure:
No you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Unless you think you can make such judgements by reading newspapers and watching television. Which would just be bizarre.
How many such case have you actually sat thro' the whole proceedings. I would venture very few.
You are therefore basing this "no doubt" on a "beyond reasonable doubt" verdict, allied to what you have seen in the media.
Which would mean that there was "no doubt", in your opinion, based on reporting.
I don't think that vidcc has no doubt (based on the above) = absolutely no doubt.
You can't go killing people based on opinion. Well you can in the US, but we don't do it in the UK. Which is what we're talking about.
Yeah, tough luck indeed if you've been convicted of something you didn't do.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
As far as I'm concerned the only case where there would be absolutely no doubt would be one where everyone responsible for the conviction of the guilty party had witnessed the crime, and where they all agreed on what happened and all forensic evidence (gathered by infallible methods) pointed to the same.
Witnesses can be unreliable, policemen can be corrupt, dna analyses can fail. So much can go wrong, because it is all run by human beings, who are, by nature, imperfect.
A case can look as if there is no doubt whatsoever at the time, but there may be a million reasons as to why it really isn't as certain as everyone thinks it is.
And an appeal won't always do, if you aren't lucky.
No legal system in the world is good enough for us to be absolutely certain everything is set right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
:lol: :lol: :lol:
What is that supposed to mean.
Do you mean like assasinate.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
How could an innocent person be convicted with no doubt?... my way is a safer route for the beyond reasonable doubt people.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
to start with the witnesses can't be the jury. but lets say the crime was captured on live tv...up close so the accused could be clearly seen and all the forensics matched your standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
that ok?
but again I ask if "no doubt" is impossible to achieve why are you so adamant that an innocent person could be convicted?
So by your reconing I have set the standard so high that there will be no executions.
He has a doppelganger.
Well you think killing is wrong full stop...I am correct in this?Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
So if it is wrong full stop you don't need any other argument to oppose it.
If any killing is wrong why would you need to say it's also wrong because we make mistakes....the first covers everything.
As I said I accept the moral view even though I don't agree with it....
Still it killed an afternoon
:pinch:Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
If no doubt really means no doubt, I haven't got a problem. However, I don't think that's realistically possible, not if you are thinking of being able to execute people. 'cos if the notion of no doubt was followed to the letter it wouldn't be possible to convict anyone to a death penalty.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
As for live tv, I think it's possible to get the wrong idea as we'll never be able to see the scene in full or have the full context.
As for forensics, my point was that there aren't any perfect methods today.
If there were, sure, but again it isn't realistically possible.