Harleyman Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 No **** sherlock! Jef Shaw obviously meant a deterrant to others. Removing the death penalty as a deterrent dont help matters do it? (Sits back and waits for the inevitable response and stats showing that the death penalty has not been a successful deterrent ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 It's not revenge, it's punishment (loss of one's freedom) with a view to rehabilitation as well as removing them from society to protect people. We seldom agree, however, I agree with you on on this. Nonsense. The whole judicial system is predicated on the notion that it is better to let a guilty person go free rather than imprison an innocent one. Yet this falls down BIG TIME where capital punishment is concerned as it cannot be undone. Mr Bojangles - do you spend of your time behind these county bars 'cause you drinks a bit? The success rate for rehabilitation has been abysmal. Any old con will tell you that he has far more chances of being back inside within a year than finding a job and moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big time Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Removing the death penalty as a deterrent dont help matters do it? (Sits back and waits for the inevitable response and stats showing that the death penalty has not been a successful deterrent ) Murders do take place in states that have the death penalty, such as Texas, But I'd guess that they'd be a hell of a lot more murders if the death penalty wasn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 The British system definitely resulted in innocent people being hanged because sentence was carried out shortly after being found guilty. One appeal was allowed to the Home Secretary who would review it briefly and far more often than not deny it. The system was archaic and Victorian right up until it's abolition in the 1960s. Hanging is an awful way method of execution. The neck is not always broken immediately and I'll bet occasionaklly it was botched up, people dangling in agony and slow strangulation fouling their clothing at the same time. Of course this would have always been kept secret. A coroner employed at the prison would have examined the corpse, issued a death certificate and the body interred on prison grounds and no one the wiser No one was going to split on Albert Pierrpoint if he had a bad day. The old boy system is always there along with the code of silence. Condemn the US system if you like but the appeals process can take years and allows for the possibility of any new evidence coming to light or the chance that the death penalty could be overturned and life imposed instead Charlie Manson was given the death penalty in California around 40 years ago but the state declared a moratorium on executions shortly afterwards and his sentence was changed to life. He still periodically appears before parole boards. Many life sentences today carry the statement "without possibility of parole ". In the cse of sentences for rape, child molestation, the prisoner is confined in solitary confinement, without outside exercise or access to books or TV. That has to be worse than death I would think. I was empanelled on a jury for a young black woman who had allegedly murdered her two young children because her boy friend didn't like kids. It carried a potential death sentence, which is very rarely used in Connecticut. I have never been happy about the possibility that I may have to vote for a death sentence, and here I was possibly having to. It's easy when you're not faced with it, but another story when you are. Luckily, I passed my 70th birthday, and was excused by Connecticut law. Immigrants who become citizens often get jury duty quickly and often, I've done or been empanelled five times in all, causing naturally born American friends to say " You must be an immigrant or something " They seem to be able to dodge it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Many life sentences today carry the statement "without possibility of parole ". In the cse of sentences for rape, child molestation, the prisoner is confined in solitary confinement, without outside exercise or access to books or TV. That has to be worse than death I would think. I was empanelled on a jury for a young black woman who had allegedly murdered her two young children because her boy friend didn't like kids. It carried a potential death sentence, which is very rarely used in Connecticut. I have never been happy about the possibility that I may have to vote for a death sentence, and here I was possibly having to. It's easy when you don't have to do it. Luckily, I passed my 70th birthday, and was excused by Connecticut law. Quite honestly if I were on a jury and it was a murder like that of little Jessica Lunsford aged 9 in Florida a few years back I'd lose no sleep in recommending death. I'd shed more tears running over a dog or a cat in the street than for the sick twisted and perverted SOB who carried out that crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Sidney Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 In debates about the death penalty its amazing that the fact that many innocent people would now have been dead, who were innocent, if we had the death penalty here. Surely if one single person is killed by the state, in a hundred years, then the death penalty has to be wrong. There's also a sickening blood thirsty lust for the blood of the convited. Of course everyone would like to see a child killer removed from the planet but sometimes child killers turn out to be wrongly convicted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Quite honestly if I were on a jury and it was a murder like that of little Jessica Lunsford aged 9 in Florida a few years back I'd lose no sleep in recommending death. I'd shed more tears running over a dog or a cat in the street than for the sick twisted and perverted SOB who carried out that crime. If I had felt convinced that she had murdered her kids in cold blood, and it had been the consensus of the jury, I would have voted for it. But I would carry the guilt for the rest of my life. Do you honestly believe that every one of those people executed in Texas were guilty enough for it, and continue to be executed. If the North Eastern states can get by without putting the needle in everybody, why can't the south? We have condemned a man to death this year in Connecticut, his accomplice is likely going to get it too. They invaded a Doctor's house, beat him senseless with a baseball bat, forced his wife at gunpoint to go to the bank and withdraw $15,000 dollars, tied his two daughters to a bed, strangled his wife, and set fire to the house, burning the girls to death. They stole the family car, and were caught by the cops within an hour. The doctor was the sole survivor. This is a case where there isn't a shadow of a doubt that they were responsible, and I would have no compunction in sentencing them to death at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 If I had felt convinced that she had murdered her kids in cold blood, and it had been the consensus of the jury, I would have voted for it. But I would carry the guilt for the rest of my life. Do you honestly believe that every one of those people executed in Texas were guilty enough for it, and continue to be executed. If the North Eastern states can get by without putting the needle in everybody, why can't the south? We have condemned a man to death this year in Connecticut, his accomplice is likely going to get it too. They invaded a Doctor's house, beat him senseless with a baseball bat, forced his wife at gunpoint to go to the bank and withdraw $15,000 dollars, tied his two daughters to a bed, strangled his wife, and set fire to the house, burning the girls to death. They stole the family car, and were caught by the cops within an hour. The doctor was the sole survivor. This is a case where there isn't a shadow of a doubt that they were responsible, and I would have no compunction in sentencing them to death at all. What's the betting that Connecticutt will never execute them? I've mentioned before that life without parole would be a good alternative but the "do gooders" would no doubt sooner or later come along and say that life without parole is cruel and unusual punishment and the ACLU or some other similar group would start pressing for more leniency. Nothing more formidable than a bleeding heart on a crusade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 23, 2011 Share Posted September 23, 2011 Exactly why the death penalty can't come back in England. I can understand the benefit of the deterrent effects of it, but if there's any doubt WHATSOEVER about someone's guilt (which unless it was witnessed by many and captured on camera, is most cases) then you can't take someone's life, there's no putting right the wrong if they are found innocent later. We only have the info available from the linked article, but if he was denied a lie detector 3 times in a row, including the supreme court deniying him the chance, there is no hope for the US justice system. EDIT: If someone put my son to death for a crime there's even the remotist chance that he was innocent, then sanity, rationality and rules go out the window and I could imagine myself (at least attempting) killing those responsible for the horrendous atrocity of "justice". I know that's not nice or right, but it's how I feel. (my bold) Seems a bit contradictory Only if you ignore this: If someone put my son to death for a crime there's even the remotist chance that he was innocent, then sanity, rationality and rules go out the window On the lie detector front there is a very good reason they are not used in the UK, that is they don't detect lies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_detection#Controversy jb Fair enough, the point still remains, they took a man's life without being sure he committed the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted September 24, 2011 Share Posted September 24, 2011 In debates about the death penalty its amazing that the fact that many innocent people would now have been dead, who were innocent, if we had the death penalty here. Surely if one single person is killed by the state, in a hundred years, then the death penalty has to be wrong. There's also a sickening blood thirsty lust for the blood of the convited. Of course everyone would like to see a child killer removed from the planet but sometimes child killers turn out to be wrongly convicted... There are billions of people on the planet. Plenty to go round if we lose a few here and there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.