Death Penalty

[bozo]

Bozo,

Start again all you like but your views are no more valid than mine and working as an usher in a court doesn't make you an expert (I work in IT supporting the MoJ so one could argue that my experience is as relevant as yours).

Dealing specifically with the death penalty, whatever arguments are made in its favour, I would reject. The question for those who support it must be are they prepared to execute innocent people, wrongly convicted. The harsh reality that it can never be 100% certain that the actual murderer is facing execution. Sadly, I have heard supporters argue that such mistakes are a price worth paying. Well not in my world!

My initial post on this subject said that.

Next, the criminal justice system in the UK. I claim some knowledge as I work as an usher in the crown court in Liverpool. The jury system is the best option and worth defending against those, for example, who would introduce either " professional juries " or even worse no juries at all.

In your opinion, one I don't happen to share especially in this day and age where some of the technical (scientific, economic or whatever) complexities are significantly beyond the ken of the average person (and thus juror).

In a criminal trial, a jury is selected from a jury panel. It is above board and fair and equitable. That jury of the defendant's peers decides the verdict on the evidence set before them. In order to convict, the jury, either unanimously or by majority, must be SURE of guilt. If the jury is UNSURE it must acquit. I believe that is as it should be and is a good system of justice. Everyone can be represented by a profesional barrister regardless of how well off you happen to be. This system operates for all criminal cases including murder.

And I have already said I have issues with that, issues based on my experience and others, it would seem, agree with me.

It is not true, Kyu, that you need to be vastly wealthy and able to employ the most expensive representation to get justice. Such cases are in the minority and are sually the high profile divorce cases like the recent Paul McCartney one, for example, or chancery matters where both sides are wealthy and make their barristers even wealthier in acting for them. I lose no sleep over fat cats slugging it out amongst themselves.

Perhaps not but there can be little doubt that there is a relationship between cost of solicitor/barrister and their experience/expertise and as such it is absolutely reasonable to suggest that those who cannot afford to hire such expertise & experience will NOT be as well represented in court as those who can. Wealth is therefore a VERY significant factor.

Again, Kyu, you claim that you didn't enjoy your experience of jury service. You claim some of your fellow jurors brought prejudices with them into the jury room. Every one of us is prejudiced in some shape or form. I have served on a jury as well as observing juries at work and I am well aware of individual juror frailties, BUT, I still believe it is the best system we have yet come up with. Incidentally, I bet you came up with the correct verdicts??

No I DID NOT claim I didn't enjoy the experience, I said my experience was negative by which I meant I was disillusioned (with regard to the UK legal system) by it and that further experiences I have had (for instance with the police) have led me towards a somewhat negative assessment of the UK criminal justice system. My personal opinion is that there are some people who should not be allowed to be jurors but then again I also believe there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Oh and no, I wasn't satisfied with either verdict.

Miscarriages of justice do happen and that is why I am passionately opposed to capital punishment.

And I said as much in my initial posting on the subject.

And finally, I rarely praise our parliamentarians ( gang of utter tossers ) but the fact that they continue to oppose its reintroduction deserves my gratitude.

Likewise I too am impressed that they have stood firm on this issue.

Oh, and BTW, please don't imply that people like me are pro CP ... none of us have said we are.

Kyu

The reason I began my last post by saying I was starting again was simply that I was intending a lengthier contribution than my earlier response to the post. I am not implying your view is less relevant than mine. Both our views are of equal value here, just different! And I am certainly not claiming to be an expert but the fact that I work in the system is worth telling I think.
I have checked your first post and in the 1st para you do actually state that there was definite proof of a defendant committing a particularly heinous crime you'd be " fine " with the death penalty.

You go on to say that you find fault with the trial system....what are the " issues " you have?

You again raise the cost issue, but such cases taken on by the highest-earning barristers are cases involving fat cats or businesses. They are in the minority in the criminal justice system and should not be used to rubbish the whole system.

Re. jury service, some people find it really satisfying, others, you included, do not. That's to be expected I would have thought.
So, how would you change things to make it better?
Oh and would you care to let us know how come you were unhappy with the verdicts in the cases you were a juror? I am genuinely interested.

Finally ( for now no doubt ) I am not aware that I implied you were for cp, but you are on record as saying you would be " fine " with it under some circumstances.

---

---

I'll start again.
Dealing specifically with the death penalty, whatever arguments are made in its favour, I would reject. The question for those who support it must be are they prepared to execute innocent people, wrongly convicted. The harsh reality that it can never be 100% certain that the actual murderer is facing execution. Sadly, I have heard supporters argue that such mistakes are a price worth paying. Well not in my world!

I'll play Devil's advocate even though I agree with you completely and argue that by executing those who have murdered, especially those who repeatedly, you are protecting those the person might kill in the future (If say the person got parole or escaped) and that would outweigh the cost of innocents killed by the death penalty.

Why argue with me?
But since you are, you are devil's advocating for cp. Why not let the cp fans take us to task?
What you are arguing is for innocent and guilty people to be executed.

Because there don't seem to be any cp fans on this forum and I was interested in seeing your response to the argument.

Fair enough.