death sentence in the uk?

[manker]

If you bring it back when there is "absolutely no doubt" then it will never happen. Short of the Jury all being eye witnesses, in addition to all the other evidence.

There are plenty of cases of "Absolutely no doubt". Confessions, eyewitnesses known to the offender, video footage, etc.. Some offenders have even asked to be executed. Plenty of inmates have admitted their guilt, many have apologised before being executed.

How can you say a confession renders a situation devoid of doubt. People confess to things they didn't do fairly frequently.

Going back to JP's point about the jury all having to be eye witnesses; if they were not, then it could be that the evidence of the actual eye witnesses is false, police corruption can influence matters. Even if one jury member wasn't an eye witness then the jury cannot convict with no doubt whatsoever.

Video evidence can be doctored by unscrupulous lawmen.

Hardly likely but even if there is a tiny, 0.00001% chance of the eye witness' account being false or the video evidence being falsified, then the case isn't 'absolutely without doubt'.

Yes, it's pedantic but lawyers are pedantic chaps. Only passing sentence if the conviction can be made 'absolutely without doubt' would mean that the sentence is never passed.

[JPaul]

If you bring it back when there is "absolutely no doubt" then it will never happen. Short of the Jury all being eye witnesses, in addition to all the other evidence.

There are plenty of cases of "Absolutely no doubt". Confessions, eyewitnesses known to the offender, video footage, etc.. Some offenders have even asked to be executed. Plenty of inmates have admitted their guilt, many have apologised before being executed.

Tell me something, which you did not see yourself, of which you are absolutely (Definitely and completely; unquestionably.) certain.

Now tell me something which you did see yourself, which later turned out to be incorrect. You must have seen these experiments done. Where people are "absolutely" certain of what they saw and it turns out to be wrong.

The confession argument is specious. Confession is only one part of proof and must be supported by other evidence.

There is no such thing as "absolutely no doubt". Absolutely no doubt about it.

[vidcc]

There are cases where there is no doubt.

As an example. A terrorist with explosives that fail to go off in a crowded train apprehended at the scene....would that be "doubtful"?

[JPaul]

There are cases where there is no doubt.

As an example. A terrorist with explosives that fail to go off in a crowded train apprehended at the scene....would that be "doubtful"?

Yes there is always doubt.

How, for example do you prove (with absolutely no doubt) he intended to explode them. Or that he was not forced to do it by someone else.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty with regard to crime.

[vidcc]

he sets the detonator off manually but it fails to set the explosives off.


How about a sniper on top of a roof apprehended in the process of shooting people. He has already killed several before the police arrive on the roof to catch him.

[JPaul]

he sets the detonator off manually but it fails to set the explosives off.


How about a sniper on top of a roof apprehended in the process of shooting people. He has already killed several before the police arive on the roof to catch him.

How do you know he set the detonator off.

Someone had his family prisoner and they would be tortured and murdered if he didn't do it.

Almost by definition he is not of sound mind. He is randomly shooting people.

[RioDeLeo]

How can you say a confession renders a situation devoid of doubt. People confess to things they didn't do fairly frequently.

Well l obviously didn't mean all confessions, l'm not that stupid, and of course other things must be considered. What l was alluding to were cases where maybe the crime is filmed, the person is known, eyewitnesses knew them, they were caught red-handed, they admitted it, etc.. Some people are so obviously guilty that the only way to bring doubt into it is with a lot of effort, and by using mathematics and philosophy. Or, as you say, by being pedantic.

[bigboab]

If 'Absolutely No Doubt' is not acceptable(In here) then I am willing to go back to the old 'Beyond reasonable doubt'. Then execute.
If they are guity, execute. Too many do-gooders in society, see where it has got us.

[JPaul]

How can you say a confession renders a situation devoid of doubt. People confess to things they didn't do fairly frequently.

Or, as you say, by being pedantic.

The law is pedantic.

Well it is in the UK.

Which is what we are talking about.

[vidcc]

If he can show that to be the case he has a defence


So by your standard nobody that kills is of sound mind and therefore not guilty.

He picks selected targets. Passes all psychological exams and says he is glad he did it because they deserved it



The una bomber who documented his crimes and stood up proud and unrepentant.... the btk killer who gave graphic cold details of how and why he killed..... Hitler.... pol pot..... the man that killed Sarah Payne..... the Yorkshire ripper...dahmer.... osama bin laden....charles manson....Ian Brady.