Death Penalty

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm assuming you are dealing with these in actual order rather than the first, second I used.

Your para 1 is scary..it justifies cp.

Humans are just animals with brains, nothing more, nothing special though that doesn't mean we can't aspire to be something bigger, better & brighter. Societies, groups of us in combination (in this case nations) give us many benefits including ethical/moral frameworks which, in rights-based societies & democracies, laws tend to reflect but without someone to back up the will of the people (of that society), whether that be military/civil force or the will of the people themselves, laws & rights are meaningless.

You think it's scary ... I think it's objective.

Para 2 is scarier. Invoking Jeremy Clarkson as a parable of wisdom is baffling. I work in the criminal justice system and I will defend the jury system until something better is suggested.

Clarkson may not be a parable of wisdom but based on my experience as a juror he's absolutely right ... the juries ARE scary.

Para 3 Our system is based on the premise of " innocent until proven guilty " long may that be so.

In principle yes, in practice no ... our legal system is based on the idea of combat (champion, gladiatorial). The rich get off more than the poor because they can afford better "champions", those with better lawyers (for whatever reason) get the result they want and we live in a society where the threat of legal action can collapse the defence ... don't even get me started on those scum sucking no win, no fee (spit!) accident lawyers companies.

Para 4..I agree that innocence equals non-conviction.

So do I and that is how I operated as a juror ... you'd be shocked at how many jurors DID NOT work by that principle (I'd estimate about half of them tend to believe the accused is guilty even before the trial stats. I've had one juror say to me, she wouldn't be here if she wasn't guilty" (and others appeared to empathise with it. Granted my experience is a relatively small statistical sample but it is based at two different courts (The Old Bailey & Canterbury Crown Court) and like it or not many of those jurors SHOULD NOT have been allowed to server in that role.

Para 5 you are sanctioning cp.

No I was sanctioning DP assuming that we actually knew for certain and assuming it WAS NOT done for revenge but to prevent the criminal re-offending.

Para 6 your conscience is creeping in...does it make you feel that much better?

I find cynicism works so much better if you actually have raised an argument that works.

Overal Kyu, I disagree with you.

Good for you ...it would be a dull place if we did all agree now wouldn't it?

Kyu

---

To be clear, I don't think there is a way to 100% convict someone, that's why it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" so the usual arguments against the death penalty like mistakes and statistics showing it's more costly to execute, etc... are strong enough on their own.

Nor do I and that's the primary reason I can never support the death penalty.

Kyu

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Kyu

Excellent post,I agree for the most part.

I do not support the death penalty on pragmatic grounds. The most basic is my conviction (sorry) that as long as we have an adversarial legal system justice will always be a happy accident rather than the norm--especially when so many people have the naive idea that the US 5th amendment or its equivalent is there to protect the guilty and that it's OK to talk to the police without a lawyer.:Neither is true.

The flaws inherent in the system have been graphically illustrated in the number of US death row inmates whose convictions have been found to be unsafe due DNA evidence. IF the system worked as intended,unsafe convictions would be rare.They are not.

Your experience on a jury echoes that reported by my mother when she sat on a rape case.

If you haven't seen it, I recommend "Pierrepoint" about Albert Peirrepoint,Britain's last hangman.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierrepoint_(film)

I also recommend the Youtube clip linked below; "Don't talk to cops" part 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

[Kyuuketsuki]

The most basic is my conviction (sorry) that as long as we have an adversarial legal system justice will always be a happy accident rather than the norm--especially when so many people have the naive idea that the US 5th amendment or its equivalent is there to protect the guilty and that it's OK to talk to the police without a lawyer.:Neither is true.

That's the word I meant, adversarial ... thanks

Yes, truth is not the aim of the British legal system.

The flaws inherent in the system have been graphically illustrated in the number of US death row inmates whose convictions have been found to be unsafe due DNA evidence. IF the system worked as intended,unsafe convictions would be rare.They are not.

Indeed and another thing that gets me is that Police performance is effectively evaluated by number of prosecutions ... logic tells me that it should be every bit as much a victory to suddenly uncover that someone is innocent (I'm envisaging a situation where a lot of investigation into a suspect has happened) yet it seems that is judged as failure.

Your experience on a jury echoes that reported by my mother when she sat on a rape case.

Being a juror is certainly an experience and I was keen to do what I considered my civic duty ... I didn't expect to be so negatively affected by it.

Thanks for the recommendations ... I will check them out later

Kyu

[bozo]

---

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!

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 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.

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.

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??

Miscarriages of justice do happen and that is why I am passionately opposed to capital punishment.
And finally, I rarely praise our parliamentarians ( gang of utter tossers ) but the fact that they continue to oppose its reintroduction deserves my gratitude.

[Eilonnwy]

---

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.

[bozo]

---

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.

[Eilonnwy]

---

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.

[leo-rcc]

Well after debating the topic furiously on other forums as opposed to CP I am not getting into this one should one occur.

[Kyuuketsuki]

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

[Rockthatpiano06]

I disagree with the death penalty... I actually did a paper on this one. For one, it doesn't belong in the gov't because most of the reasons used to justify it are religious. Secondly, it is more costly doing that then keeping the person alive... half the time, even if they are guilty, they are on death row for 20 years before either they get killed or they find a glitch in the case and they are let go. Then obviously there's the fact that many innocent people die from it, that its a barbaric way to try to inflict justice, ect. ect.

---

---

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.

I would say that if the person is getting paroled or escapes, that is a problem with the system, not a positive point for the death penalty. Nobody who murders should ever be allowed out of jail, and if they escape then, to say it blunty, the prison security sucks.