death sentence in the uk?

[vidcc]

I take it then that you want the death penalty removed for only "reasonable doubt" cases.

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.

ie you want the death penalty removed in the US.

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.

If so why would we want it in the UK.

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"


I am fine with anyone that objects to capital punishment on moral grounds. I just don't share those morals.

[JPaul]

I take it then that you want the death penalty removed for only "reasonable doubt" cases.

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.

ie you want the death penalty removed in the US.

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.

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).

I object to it on two grounds.

1. Moral

2. We get it wrong and innocent people die.

[bigboab]

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.

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?

[JPaul]

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.

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?

No

[vidcc]

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.

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 luck

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.

that's why we have appeals

[vidcc]

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).
.

I support it in principle under my given criteria. Should I oppose that principle because it isn't how it is right now?

I object to it on two grounds.

1. Moral

2. We get it wrong and innocent people die.

I don't share your moral objection and the no doubt part removes the "getting it wrong"

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.

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?

[JPaul]

I support it in principle under my given criteria. Should I oppose that principle because it isn't how it is right now?

So you don't support it in practice and would not have it available for the "reasonable doubt" proof.

Ergo you are against capital punishment, until the US brings in an "absolutely no doubt" system.

[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?

See above.

I have two objections.

Unlike you, I am unwilling to emulate the ethics of murderers, no matter who I am dealing with.

[vidcc]

I support it in principle under my given criteria. Should I oppose that principle because it isn't how it is right now?

So you don't support it in practice and would not have it available for the "reasonable doubt" proof.

Ergo you are against capital punishment, until the US brings in an "absolutely no doubt" system.

NO.

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?

[bigboab]

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?

See above.

I have two objections.

Unlike you, I am unwilling to emulate the ethics of murderers, no matter who I am dealing with.

What would you do if you were in the army and ordered to kill someone?