alchresearch Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 The fact we have nearly 100,000 people in prison would suggest that prison is less of a deterrent. Not really. Prison, and the consequences long after, scares the life out of me, so its a deterrent for me, and no doubt many other like minded souls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 I think the death penalty can still be justified in some cases, the standard of proof may just need to be altered. For example the Woolwich killers, where there is zero doubt they did it. It would be justifiable to hang them in my opinion. Anyone who is found guilty has to be done to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" There is no place for degrees of guilt in a criminal law system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barleycorn Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 The fact we have nearly 100,000 people in prison would suggest that prison is less of a deterrent.[ Prison, or even the DP, are only a deterrent to those who think they'll get caught. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Anyone who is found guilty has to be done to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" There is no place for degrees of guilt in a criminal law system. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't prevent miscarriages of justice though. Where a death penalty is applied following a guilty verdict, an even higher burden of proof might be appropriate (not for deciding guilt or innocence, but for deciding on the sentence) such as being caught literally red handed like the Woolwich murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 it is arguably so that prison is not a deterrent to many people, but i was only talking about murderers - and i'm not sure the murder rate went up significantly when the death penalty was abolished - although i'd be happy to be corrected if anyone can be bothered to search for the statistics and i'm not sure i follow the argument that killing an innocent person is more humane than allowing them to live I wouldn't class 30 years of confinement as living, and I wouldn't want to endure it. Ending the suffering of any living thing is far more humane than allowing them to suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Anyone who is found guilty has to be done to a standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" There is no place for degrees of guilt in a criminal law system. In a perfect world yes but we dont live in one.We do live in a world where police hide evidence,where jurys just want to get home and of course cost is a major factor in defence. Many defences are put together by the accused themselfs while sat in a cell on remand and at the last minute they go over it with their briefs. That leaves the door open to error and abuse.There is nothing stopping prison officers from going through a prisonors notes and even copying it then passing it on to prossecution to use to their own gain.While letters entering a prison from solicitors is supposed to be privilideged info it rarely is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Not really. Prison, and the consequences long after, scares the life out of me, so its a deterrent for me, and no doubt many other like minded souls. There is nothing that I want to do that would result in me going to prison, so it doesn't act as a deterrent for me. Having said that I have little faith in the courts and police to always get it right so I would be terrified if I was arrested for something I hadn't done, the thought of spending life in prison for something that I hadn't done would likely cause me to take my life and I would most definitely choose a quick death over life in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Its something like half a million and a couple of hundred grand for loss of earnings. Under £1 million anyhow for 25 years. Good old USA. No idea what he lost in pay since I dont know what he worked at before. No doubt he'll be compensated eventually. Jurors are only human however. If the evidence at the time looked enough for a conviction they've done nothing wrong in finding him guilty. 25 years ago DNA was unknown but since it's introduction it's provided new evidence to either confirm the murdere's guilt or absolve him or her of any guilt. When a person gets sent to death row they have by law the right to appeal their sentence all the way up to the highest courts and lawyers working for them are given oporrtunities to present any new evidence they've found along the way to warrant a new trial. That can take years. Richard Ramirez the serial killer who broke into homes at night and murdered several people before being recognized and arrested on the street spent over 23 years on San Quentin death row. During that time he got a few thousand dollars worth of dental treatment and was allowed to marry the goony bird who became interested him while he was in prison and later fell in love with him. During all that time the appeal process went on and on although the evidence against him was overwhelming. A moratorium on the death penalty in Calfornia probably saved him for the last seven years of his life before he died of natural causes about a year and a half ago. There's nothing wrong with the sytem here overall. At least Ramirez was luckier than Timothy Evans who was hanged for murders that his landlord John Halliday Christie committed. The British system back then was if found guilty one appeal to the Home Secretary and if that was denied a date with Albert Pierpoint very shortly after that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWOODS Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 How can you support the death penalty when it's obviously so easy to wrongly convict someone?!? Because forensic technology is pretty good these days. ---------- Post added 13-03-2014 at 19:50 ---------- No it doesn't. Yes it does............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 13, 2014 Share Posted March 13, 2014 Yes it does............ You're going to need to explain why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.