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.

[Kyuuketsuki]

[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

[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.

[Kyuuketsuki]

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.

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.

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.

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

[Giff]

Death penalty is a cave man punishment. Nothing for the civilized world, it's like an eye for an eye. Plus, it's a easy way out for some convicts. For some is it a relief to get executed instead of being locked in for several years and suffer. You don't suffer when you die. And no, they shouldn't be tortured. The suffering I mean is the lack of freedom and hopefully the thoughts of what they've done.

Otherwise is the problem with those get the death penalty even thought they're innocent. Some have already discussed it here and I agree with that it is a problem. It's huge reason why there shoouldnt be a death penalty. There are in fact many reasons why not having death penalty. I could add one that says that you should not sink to the same level as those who have made a horrible crime.

I'm happy to live in a civlized country without the death penalty. Those who still have it and support it are not civlized. Also in my country do we also have 15-20 years for those who have commited murder. But! And it's a huge but. These low sentences is just for those who have killed someone or murdered someone under certain circumstances. They who have commited horrible crimes such as rape of chilren, murdering children and such get much longer punishment of course. But gladly is those cases very very rare.

Why the sentences is 15+ year for those who have commited "normal" murder or other bigger crimes. Maybe armed robbery,which is around 10 years and such. Is because we believe people can change and have programs of doing so. It's also shown, supported by science, that humans change in personality and who they are every 10 years. That's why often people get quite low sentences and specially when they are young around the ages of 18 up to 23-25. You change more who you are from 18-28 then 28-38.

[Demonaura]

"It's also shown, supported by science, that humans change in personality and who they are every 10 years."

Being one who is into psychology I am VERY interested in any sources you might have to back up or explain this. Even better of you have a link to a science journal or something like that which will get into the deep end. I'm not saying I doubt your claim, it would not be that surprising at all (except for it happening reliably around the 10 year mark, that is my interest) I would just like more info on the subject.

Perhaps it is just the phases of life that we have defined for ourselves.. Either way I'll await any potential linkage before I start my thinking on it.

[Kyuuketsuki]

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

[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. )

[Kyuuketsuki]

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?

Still no.

Not absolutely sure but I would and that I could pull the trigger myself if that was what was required ... to protect the lives of others.

Could you at least try and format your posts properly so I can see what I'm, replying to?

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='12506' dateline='1238074034']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. )

Thank you ... I said no, I meant it. This time I'm saying that because I don't see the point ... you've made up your mind and nothing I can say will change it even in the slightest ... unlike you I do not put the British legal system on a pedestal.

Kyu

[bozo]

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='12506' dateline='1238074034']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?

Still no.

Not absolutely sure but I would and that I could pull the trigger myself if that was what was required ... to protect the lives of others.

Could you at least try and format your posts properly so I can see what I'm, replying to?

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. )

Thank you ... I said no, I meant it. This time I'm saying that because I don't see the point ... you've made up your mind and nothing I can say will change it even in the slightest ... unlike you I do not put the British legal system on a pedestal.

Kyu

I don't put our legal system on any pedestal. I simply defend the jury system as it is against your attempts at rubbishing it.