Man on death row for 25 years walks free

[boyfriday]

My opinion is based on 50 years of life and an incredibly large amount of information, this information isn't condensed into a single web site that I can post for you. You either believe that I am right or you believe that I am wrong, and if you believe that I am wrong and you want to change my mind, then it is for you to supply some facts that will achieve your desired goal. For now I haven't see a single good reason not to execute Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale and I can think of many good reasons to execute them.

 

Funny that, for the "Who Is the Most Worthy Recipient of the Death Penalty Award", I'd put these two right at the bottom.

 

Reasons? Because that would be playing right into their hands-who do we remember most from history-individuals who were imprisoned by the state or those who were executed?

 

Irrespective of what they believed in, people who kill and are executed for their 'cause', end up with their name up in lights as far as their supporters are concerned.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 13:23 ----------

 

They are more likely to suffer at the hands of a convicted murderer than they are of being found guilty of of a murder they didn't do. The odds are in my favour.

 

It's not really about odds though. If the state is proposing capital punishment it has to be able to guarantee it gets it right-every time.

 

Odds are of no use to people who have their lives taken away for something they didn't do.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 13:25 ----------

 

A life of confinement would be far worse than death

 

 

That's good enough for me, placating myself without getting anyone's blood on my hands.

[Mr Clowning]

 

The one that is free, the innocent person that is likely to spend the rest of life in prison as less to loose, and I would certainly prefer death to life in prison.

 

So what your now saying is that the worst punishment for these people is to lock them up for a long time, who's side are you on ?

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 15:55 ----------

 

What does it matter who does the killing if an innocent person ends up dead, at least if its the state that does it then at some point in the future their family will likely be compensated, not that any amount of compensation will bring them back.

It does matter though because you put on society the guilt of murder, why can you not comprehend that if you kill an innocent man then you have committed murder in the name of us all.

 

 

Of cause you can, every murder that was committed by a convicted murderer could have been prevented.

And as you won't supply any figures to how many they are then we could be talking 1 or a million, just as you can't give the figures of how many innocent people have been convicted. It sounds like your opting for a justice lottery.

 

 

 

 

No I haven't ignored them, I just value their life below that of people that haven't committed a crime.

No you don't because you have stated that your willing to sacrifice the innocent people that may be wrongly convicted and killed to achieve your goal.

[Bonzo77]

Of cause you can know the future.

 

Here is a future prediction, one murderer will be released from prison and he will kill an innocent person.

 

HaHa! Seriously?

 

Here's a prediction for the future. One man will be released from prison after serving 30years for murder. He will then go on to work as a social worker and turn around the lives of many potential future criminals.

 

Also, because the death sentence is not in practice, no innocent people have lost their lives due to a miscarriage of justice.

 

Therefore the number of rehabilitated ex-convicts, plus the number of rehabilitated youths will always be greater than the number of convicts that go on to murder again after their release from prison.

 

This is a FACT, or at least as much of a fact as and 'facts' that you've been going on about in your previous posts......FACT!

[ivanava]

If I was inclined to change your mind how could I,

 

By presenting the evidence which you have based your opinion on, it maybe that you have some information that I haven't seen, unlikely but possible.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 16:46 ----------

 

Funny that, for the "Who Is the Most Worthy Recipient of the Death Penalty Award", I'd put these two right at the bottom.

 

Reasons? Because that would be playing right into their hands-who do we remember most from history-individuals who were imprisoned by the state or those who were executed?

 

Irrespective of what they believed in, people who kill and are executed for their 'cause', end up with their name up in lights as far as their supporters are concerned.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 13:23 ----------

 

 

It's not really about odds though. If the state is proposing capital punishment it has to be able to guarantee it gets it right-every time.

 

Odds are of no use to people who have their lives taken away for something they didn't do.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 13:25 ----------

 

 

 

That's good enough for me, placating myself without getting anyone's blood on my hands.

 

It seams you are more interested in revenge than saving innocent lives, it's not exactly the moral stance is it?

[Mr Clowning]

United Kingdom

 

In 1660, in a series of events known as the Campden Wonder, an Englishman named William Harrison disappeared after going on a walk, near the village of Charingworth, in Gloucestershire. Some of his clothing was found slashed and bloody on the side of a local road. Police interrogated Harrison’s servant, John Perry, who eventually confessed that his mother and his brother had killed Harrison for money. Perry, his mother, and his brother were hanged. Two years later, Harrison reappeared, telling the incredibly unlikely tale that he had been abducted by three horsemen and sold into slavery in Ottoman Empire. Though his tale was implausible, he indubitably had not been murdered by the Perry family.

 

Timothy Evans was tried and executed in 1950 for the murder of his baby daughter Geraldine. An official inquiry conducted 16 years later determined that it was Evans's fellow tenant, serial killer John Reginald Halliday Christie, who was responsible for the murder. Christie also admitted to the murder of Evans's wife, as well as five other women and his own wife. Christie may have murdered other women, judging by evidence found in his possession at the time of his arrest, but it was never pursued by the police. Evans was posthumously pardoned in 1966. The case had prompted the abolition of capital punishment in the UK in 1965.

 

Mahmood Hussein Mattan was executed in 1952 for the murder of Lily Volpert. In 1998 the Court of Appeal decided that the original case was, in the words of Lord Justice Rose, "demonstrably flawed". The family were awarded £725,000 compensation, to be shared equally among Mattan's wife and three children. The compensation was the first award to a family for a person wrongfully hanged.

 

Derek Bentley was a mentally challenged young man who was executed in 1953. He was convicted of the murder of a police officer during an attempted robbery, despite the facts that it was his accomplice who fired the gun and that Bentley was already under arrest at the time of the shooting. The accomplice who actually fired the fatal shot could not be executed due to his young age.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

 

Just to show that its a one way street if you have executions. At least if you served a life sentence and are later found to be innocent you get see to the acknowledgment of your exoneration and not die just you knowing your right.

[Halibut]

It seams you are more interested in revenge the saving innocent lives, it not exactly the moral stance is it?

 

On the contrary; it is you who seek vengeance. Killing someone who has killed someone else is the ultimate act of revenge.

 

The other thing you miss (of course) is the idiocy inherent in the notion that a society should express its dissaproval of killing by killing. Do you also think we should express our abhorrence of the crime of rape by raping rapists?

[ivanava]

So what your now saying is that the worst punishment for these people is to lock them up for a long time, who's side are you on ?

Not at all, I'm saying the worst punishment for me would be locked up for life.

 

 

 

It does matter though because you put on society the guilt of murder, why can you not comprehend that if you kill an innocent man then you have committed murder in the name of us all.

So what you are saying is we should never go to war, because we will inevitably kill innocent people and we should never risk killing innocent people in order to save the lives of innocent people. Clearly the innocent people we can't protect will be very unhappy about that.

 

 

And as you won't supply any figures to how many they are then we could be talking 1 or a million, just as you can't give the figures of how many innocent people have been convicted. It sounds like your opting for a justice lottery.

 

So if you don't know the figures, how did you come to the opinion that we should never try to save an innocent life if it risks the live on an other innocent person.

 

 

 

No you don't because you have stated that your willing to sacrifice the innocent people that may be wrongly convicted and killed to achieve your goal.

 

What I have said its that I am willing to risk executing an innocent person to save the life of other innocent people.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 17:04 ----------

 

 

Just to show that its a one way street if you have executions. At least if you served a life sentence and are later found to be innocent you get see to the acknowledgment of your exoneration and not die just you knowing your right.

 

Do you have any resent examples of innocent people that are serving life sentences for murder.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2014 at 17:12 ----------

 

On the contrary; it is you who seek vengeance. Killing someone who has killed someone else is the ultimate act of revenge.

 

No it isn't, revenge would be making them suffer, and it appears some of you are more interested in seeing Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale suffer, than saving the lives if innocent people.

 

The other thing you miss (of course) is the idiocy inherent in the notion that a society should express its dissaproval of killing by killing. Do you also think we should express our abhorrence of the crime of rape by raping rapists?

 

That's a stupid suggestion but its still better than releasing from prison so that they can rape someone else.

[mjw47]

Here's a suggestion with regard to reintroducing the death penalty.

 

We hold a referendum.

 

Should the death penalty be returned as a result of that vote then three things happen.

 

Firstly, we start executing convicted murderers again.

 

Secondly, everyone who voted in favour of this happening has their details retained for future use.

 

Thirdly, when it comes to light and is proven - as inevitably it will be - that an innocent person has been put to death for a crime which they did not commit, then a lottery takes place using the retained information.

 

The person chosen at random from amongst the 'yes' voters is then executed.

 

This seems perfectly fair to me. After all, the original person was innocent and had to walk to their death knowing that fact.

 

However, the lotto winner played a part in the death of that innocent man, and is therefore culpable in his murder, for that of course is what it will have been.

 

Surely no advocate of the death penalty could object to that arrangement?

 

After all, they would have been, at least partly, responsible for the death of an innocent man and should pay the price which they are eager to impose on others, shouldn't they?

[Mr Clowning]

Not at all, I'm saying the worst punishment for me would be locked up for life.

And so must be the same for them, or are you different ?

If the worst thing imaginable is being locked up for a long time then why would you want to give them a release from that punishment, surely you adopt a punishment that will try to put others off and as you say yourself the worst thing for you would be locking up and not being executed.

 

 

 

 

So what you are saying is we should never go to war, because we will inevitably kill innocent people and we should never risk killing innocent people in order to save the lives of innocent people. Clearly the innocent people we can't protect will be very unhappy about that.

No I am not saying that, I have not mentioned war which is a totally different thing where you kill in defense of the nation. Have you noticed how we don't kill everyone in the country when we go to war and try to just kill the enemy ?

 

 

 

 

So if you don't know the figures, how did you come to the opinion that we should never try to save an innocent life if it risks the live on an other innocent person.

But your asking me to come up with statistics to show we already have the best policy when it is you that's suggesting we change it so its for you to come up with some figures which you cannot or you would have already.

 

 

 

 

What I have said its that I am willing to risk executing an innocent person to save the life of other innocent people.

That does not make sense, how do you know who is more deserving of life, who are you to make that judgment, or even the state ?

 

 

 

Do you have any resent examples of innocent people that are serving life sentences for murder.

I can find you some if you want. Don't be confused with me fetching you links to people who were innocent and executed when we had that law and people that have been innocent today, they are totally different things and nothing to do with the point I was making, if you wish I am sure I can find that information for you but should I have to when your not willing to prove anything and wanting people to go on your gut instinct of whats best.

 

 

 

That's a stupid suggestion but its still better than releasing from prison so that they can rape someone else.

And that is a stupid answer, what does that actually mean anyhow what you put here ?

[ivanava]

Here's a suggestion with regard to reintroducing the death penalty.

 

We hold a referendum.

 

Should the death penalty be returned as a result of that vote then three things happen.

 

Firstly, we start executing convicted murderers again.

 

Secondly, everyone who voted in favour of this happening has their details retained for future use.

 

Thirdly, when it comes to light and is proven - as inevitably it will be - that an innocent person has been put to death for a crime which they did not commit, then a lottery takes place using the retained information.

 

The person chosen at random from amongst the 'yes' voters is then executed.

 

This seems perfectly fair to me. After all, the original person was innocent and had to walk to their death knowing that fact.

 

However, the lotto winner played a part in the death of that innocent man, and is therefore culpable in his murder, for that of course is what it will have been.

 

Surely no advocate of the death penalty could object to that arrangement?

 

After all, they would have been, at least partly, responsible for the death of an innocent man and should pay the price which they are eager to impose on others, shouldn't they?

 

I take it you also think one labour voter should be put to death to compensate for each innocent person killed in the wars they involved us in.

 

I imagine you will also want one of the no voters put to death each time a convicted criminal is released from prison and goes on to kill an innocent person.