Bypassblade Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26540604 What it says really, a man convicted of murder and sentenced to death has been on death row for 25 years - he has finally been released after being exonerated How on earth can he be compensated for the years he has lost? If you support the death penalty, what do you think about this story? I support the DP but lets face it, it has emerged that one of the witnesses deliberately lied on the stand to help get the conviction. So not so much wrongful sentence but having a bloody liar on the stand, also why has it taken 30 years on Death Row to actually get this new evidence, have they been sat on their hands. They say he could get 250k, now this won't compensate for his lost life and he's got to readjust to life, let's wait and it. On BBC they said it has emerged that he wasn't even there when the poor person was murdered, how can that get over looked surely bad prosecution, defence & bent coppers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Not for me, an unjust punishment is an unjust punishment, regardless of the crime. ah well we don't allways get what we want Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 ah well we don't allways get what we want Especially not when we're dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 [/b] I support the DP but lets face it, it has emerged that one of the witnesses deliberately lied on the stand to help get the conviction. So not so much wrongful sentence but having a bloody liar on the stand, also why has it taken 30 years on Death Row to actually get this new evidence, have they been sat on their hands. They say he could get 250k, now this won't compensate for his lost life and he's got to readjust to life, let's wait and it. On BBC they said it has emerged that he wasn't even there when the poor person was murdered, how can that get over looked surely bad prosecution, defence & bent coppers. How can you support the death penalty when it's obviously so easy to wrongly convict someone?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 While it's a great shame he spent twenty-five years behind bars at least he's still alive. When the death penalty was legal in the UK a person convicted of murder usually went to the gallows in a few weeks. If evidence was later found to prove him innocent it was just a little too late. This man on the other hand needs to find himself a good lawyer and find out what he can get in the way of just compensation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 How can you support the death penalty when it's obviously so easy to wrongly convict someone?!? How can you support locking someone up for 30 years when it's obviously so easy to wrongly convict someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I'm in favour of the death penalty, but only in cases where there's no doubt whatsoever. But that is what the Jury was supposed to have had in this case. A good defence needs good money and while the screws are being tightened on that then more will be convicted of offences they didnt commit.I for one am glad we did away with the death penalty,its pretty final and alot more mistakes are made are made than we know.Often the police get the bit between their teeth and run with it,often knowing theres doubt,in some cases hiding and destroying evidence. you only have to look properly at Jermemy Bambers case to know why we should never allow back the death penalty.The chances are he's innocent but no one is ever going to admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 depends on the crime No it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 No it doesn't. erm yes it does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 But that is what the Jury was supposed to have had in this case. A good defence needs good money and while the screws are being tightened on that then more will be convicted of offences they didnt commit.I for one am glad we did away with the death penalty,its pretty final and alot more mistakes are made are made than we know.Often the police get the bit between their teeth and run with it,often knowing theres doubt,in some cases hiding and destroying evidence. you only have to look properly at Jermemy Bambers case to know why we should never allow back the death penalty.The chances are he's innocent but no one is ever going to admit it. I mean like those two mad men who killed the soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.