Death Penalty

[bozo]

Question: If you were sitting in judgement upon a mass murderer (the evidence is near incontrovertible) who had callously murdered (in the most brutal fashion) over a thousand people, admitted (and was even proud of) his "achievements", showed no signs of remorse and stated that he would continue to kill others in higher numbers and more bloody, brutal & dehumanising ways if at all possible would you realistically consider a death sentence?

Kyu

Still no.

---

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.

And I repeat that to view what I said that way takes my remarks out of context as the part of the sentence (and indeed the rest of the frakking post) explained.

Repeating doesn't help me understand I'm afraid. Are you playing with words and meaning?

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.

Have you ever tried to get legal aid? It's means tested you know ... I couldn't damn well get it and I am not wealthy.

Where I work the courts are full of ordinary working class people who get representation within their means. I repeat, quoting cases involving the highest-paid silks in high profile cases is akin to being a red hering in this discussion.

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.

Simple objective situational testing.

OF COURSE you need to consider jurors that can understand science and economics ... I do not believe I could be an adequate juror on a trial that involved financial crime because I don't understand (don't really want to understand) the financial system. I would however be an excellent juror on a trial that included significant and detailed science based testimony ... the fact is that some people simply DO NOT Understand such evidence.

I have already intimated that I do not entirely agree with the concept of trial by ones peers and you know what you can do with your implied master race accusations?

Judges are human too and potentially every bit as biased as the rest of us.

Our system does not require jurors and judges to be qualified in the subject matter. You are implying that in some cases they should be.
In specialised cases, EXPERT WITNESSES give evidence for both sides and the jury decides on the evidence, guided by the judge as to the law.
The fairness of the jury system is that the jury brings life-experience ( as opposed to specialist knowledge ) into the courtroom and decides the case on the evidence. Your suggestions for change would, in my opinion, work against fairness.

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

No I haven't and I am not going to ... firstly it would take too long (I'd have to detail the cases) and secondly I suspect I am not supposed to.

Kyu

You needn't give full details, just why you weren't happy. You can discuss jury trials after the event ( it's only during the trial that you are not supposed to. )