Death Penalty

[bozo]

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='12433' dateline='1237974226']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 know being an atheist I would have thought you knew the cardinal rule (mainly because it's what theists & wingnuts do all the time) and that is not to quote (or take someone's remarks) out of context but it appears you haven't learned that.

What I actually said, word for word, was:

"Also, if it could be demonstrated beyond doubt that someone actually was genuinely guilty of a crime abhorrent enough to merit death, I'd be fine with it ... that's not entirely true as will become clear."

So I firstly established that the crime was genuinely abhorrent, I then said I would be fine with it and THEN I qualified the remark by saying that wasn't entirely true.

If you are going to claim I said something at least have the common decency to make sure you say what I actually said.

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.

Says who? You? So what! I believe that NO ONE should ever get to select their lawyer, that all lawyers should be paid out of the public purse ... I think that might eliminate some of the inequalities. TBH I think it's a SERIOUS problem with the British legal system because there is a significant difference between me and someone who can't afford a lawyer ... I would pay quite a lot if I had to ... (and I'm not all that well off) someone from a less advantaged background might not want to pay at all.

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.

Juror testing for a start, wouldn't be all that hard to set up a series of tests to show if a juror were capable of making reasoned, unbiased decisions. Also jurors selected with relevant expertise. I would also apply that last to judges and all judgement processes would involve a minimum of three persons.

Kyu

I may be being a big thicky here but does your opening statement that I referred to not mean that you would be " fine " with cp if it were always 100% certain that you were actually executing the right person? That's what I think you mean and if you do then that puts you in the cp camp doesn't it? Under those circumstances, of course.

Re. costs, ever heard of legaL aid? I see ordinary people every day in my courts represented by very able barristers. Engaging the best silks is the perogative of the very wealthy....and I couldn't give a tuppeny fuck about them. In short, you exaggerate the significance to support your case.

So you would test would-be jurors? Sounds like something Hitler's Germany would have had. Only the master race need apply, huh. Quite distasteful, in my view and so against the concept of a trial by your peers. And you want to test judges as well for " expertise "! Law IS their expertise, don't you know. They don't need any other specialist knowledge, they are there to apply the law of the land.

You haven't explained why you were unhappy at the verdicts in your cases by the way.