Bring back the death penalty

[skinz]

they don't even realise that when there's a death penalty and jury system, the jury is less likely to convict, and more murderers get away with it, and walk free - they don't get punished at all, and are able to commit further crimes up to and including murder in the future.

 

If you didn't have the death penalty then jurors would be more likely to convict as opposed to their fear of getting it wrong through the death penalty system. Which again is a good enough reason to abolish as you could argue the DP gets in the way of justice?

[Tyranna]

If DNA proves they were thew killer ,a short trial is all that is needed ,and if DNA proves they are guilty ,then not even the Bleeding Heart brigade among society can argue against the death penalty . ( although i dare say some may still try and find an excuse for the killers crime).

 

Very well put; I only feel so sorry for people in Norway that they wont have that option of getting rid of that Brevik maniac.

 

Has any country in history succeeded in introducing the Death Penalty as a RETROSPECTIVE punishment to deal with those already jailed for life for 'cruel and unusually extreme' crimes such as mass-murder?

 

If that was ever possible here, maybe we could get the future Post-gaddaffi government of Libya to hand back Abdul '*******' Al Magrahi, the Lockerbie Bomber, as the first to face Justice...

[Tyranna]

Duplicate post deleted

[Conrod]

they don't even realise that when there's a death penalty and jury system, the jury is less likely to convict, and more murderers get away with it, and walk free - they don't get punished at all, and are able to commit further crimes up to and including murder in the future.

The jury system is deeply flawed anyway - most jurors don't have the wits to work out the vidence before them. Far better to have a panel of 3 judges who can handle the information and won't be swayed by emotive nonsense.

[fake]

Very well put;

 

No, the post by Sheffvan 1 was badly put.

 

Quote by Sheffvan 1; "If DNA proves they were thew killer"

 

DNA cannot prove that.

 

Quote by Sheffvan 1; "if DNA proves they are guilty"

 

DNA cannot prove that either so both assumptions a deeply flawed.

[Plain Talker]

A great post...

 

However i get the feel almost all of these conviction overthrow's are due to technicalities or incorrect procedure at the trial or investigation rather than based on factual non-guilt...

 

Stefan Kiszko's case:- he was absolutely, totally and utterly innocent. he was fitted up by the police who were aware of the fact that the man who had really raped and killed 13 year old Lesley Molseed was "potent" (Ie had sperm in his semen, whereas SK, due to a hormonal imbalance had none whatsoever,) proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that SK was innocent. They chose not to reveal this fact, for the sake of a conviction, ANY conviction.

 

Bentley:- was in custody at the time Christopher Craig shot the police officer. Not only were the jury misdirected on a point of law, as mentioned above, by the judge, Bentley was hanged because Craig, at 16, was too young to be hanged.

 

His hanging was not "justice", it was "retribution":- "We can't hang the real killer, so we'll hang Bentley!"

 

Incidentally, Bentley was also mentally handicapped, and barely literate. His mental handicap should have precluded him from being given the Death Penalty, as Minors and the mentally subnormal aren't considered fit to be hanged.

 

Sally Clark and another woman were convicted of their children's murders on the evidence of a discredited "forensicist"

 

One well- proven case, not mentioned by Obelix in his very-well put-together post, was that of Timothy Evans:- hanged for the murder of Evans's wife. The real killer, Christie, gave evidence against Evans in court, which led to his conviction.

It was only later that Christie was caught for Mrs Evans' murder, and the murder of several other women, including that of Christie's own wife.

[Phanerothyme]

The jury system is deeply flawed anyway - most jurors don't have the wits to work out the vidence before them. Far better to have a panel of 3 judges who can handle the information and won't be swayed by emotive nonsense.

 

 

I think that justice could be speeded up in the manner you suggest - and indeed to have an investigating judiciary, freeing the police to fulfil their original role of keeping public order and exercising powers of arrest.

 

But with a system like this, there must still be a right of appeal (which would be automatic in the case of a death sentence). Ultimately every death sentence would be appealed to the highest authority. All of this would naturally have to be contested in court by the crown and the appellant, and the appellant would need to be in prison the whole time.

[Conrod]

I think that justice could be speeded up in the manner you suggest - and indeed to have an investigating judiciary, freeing the police to fulfil their original role of keeping public order and exercising powers of arrest.

 

But with a system like this, there must still be a right of appeal . . .

With you up to that point, but if an independent body reviews the case then the right to apply for appeal should not automatically mean that appeal will be granted.

I don't see why human life should be treated as anything special - it's not as though we're short of human beings on this planet.

[Bulgarian]

If my child was murdered ,id demand to pull the lever to open the trap door and see the killer swing myself. And id enjoy every second of seeing them die.

 

And if your child was wrongly convicted of murder and executed you'd presumably accept that ?

[Glamrocker]

Stefan Kiszko's case:- he was absolutely, totally and utterly innocent. he was fitted up by the police who were aware of the fact that the man who had really raped and killed 13 year old Lesley Molseed was "potent" (Ie had sperm in his semen, whereas SK, due to a hormonal imbalance had none whatsoever,) proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that SK was innocent. They chose not to reveal this fact, for the sake of a conviction, ANY conviction.

 

Bentley:- was in custody at the time Christopher Craig shot the police officer. Not only were the jury misdirected on a point of law, as mentioned above, by the judge, Bentley was hanged because Craig, at 16, was too young to be hanged.

 

His hanging was not "justice", it was "retribution":- "We can't hang the real killer, so we'll hang Bentley!"

 

Incidentally, Bentley was also mentally handicapped, and barely literate. His mental handicap should have precluded him from being given the Death Penalty, as Minors and the mentally subnormal aren't considered fit to be hanged.

 

Sally Clark and another woman were convicted of their children's murders on the evidence of a discredited "forensicist"

 

One well- proven case, not mentioned by Obelix in his very-well put-together post, was that of Timothy Evans:- hanged for the murder of Evans's wife. The real killer, Christie, gave evidence against Evans in court, which led to his conviction.

It was only later that Christie was caught for Mrs Evans' murder, and the murder of several other women, including that of Christie's own wife.

 

Evans was accused of murdering his wife and daughter,he stood trial only for the murder of his daughter so your statement is incorrect,He was posthumously pardoned 16 years later,strangely while Christie admitted killing all his victims including Evans' wife he went to his death denying the killing of the daughter which leads to a possible theory ,outlandish as it may seem,that there were two killers in Rillington Place.