ballaughbiker Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Emotive language that liberals always use when cornered. Like "beating children" for mild smacking. And like simply calling him "a child"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 >Rope is cheap and very effective. My concern is the legal process which determines the recipient of the sentence. And if you were on the jury, could you be certain "beyond all reasonable doubt" considering you know you will be part responsible for that persons execution? TBT. I reckon I could in many circumstances, particularly if they were boasting about what they'd done as seems to be the fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted November 9, 2014 Author Share Posted November 9, 2014 The vast majority of murder cases are well beyond reasonable doubt, but we only remember those where the State has taken an innocent life. I'm not in favour of the ultimate sanction; except in the absolute very worst cases of mass murder, acts of genocide etc. As an example, I think that Norway's Anders Breivik, who shot all those students, should not be doing life in a Norwegian prison. It makes a mockery of any sense of justice for all his victims and their families, and justice has to be the prime consideration before anything else. It's a sick joke that this guy is still alive. Too many people though confuse justice with revenge and mistake one for the other. Revenge is not properly a part of the judicial process, and one of the reasons we have one in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 The vast majority of murder cases are well beyond reasonable doubt, but we only remember those where the State has taken an innocent life. I'm not in favour of the ultimate sanction; except in the absolute very worst cases of mass murder, acts of genocide etc. As an example, I think that Norway's Anders Breivik, who shot all those students, should not be doing life in a Norwegian prison. It makes a mockery of any sense of justice for all his victims and their families, and justice has to be the prime consideration before anything else. It's a sick joke that this guy is still alive. Too many people though confuse justice with revenge and mistake one for the other. Revenge is not properly a part of the judicial process, and one of the reasons we have one in the first place. >The vast majority of murder cases are well beyond reasonable doubt, So what rules do we apply to those cases that fall outside of the vast majority? And for that grey area between majority and minority, how do we decide where the line is drawn? And what sanction do we apply to those 'expert' witnesses who form opinions based not on fact, but on duping the jury with dodgy evidence to further their careers via the publicity of the trial? http://www.theguardian.com/g2/story/0,3604,404994,00.html And of the honeytrap involving Colin Stagg for the Wimbledon Common murder? Not only was it illegal, and not only that the real murderer (Robert Napper) continued his killing spree whilst at large (+2 in 1993)...but the WPC who carried out the honeytrap, successfully sued The Force for £125k citing 'psychiatric injury'. Incidentally, a sum 570% more than the victim's son received for the loss of his mother! And DNA evidence isn't quite so foolproof as one would imagine. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2767453/DNA-blunders-mean-murderers-rapists-convictions-overturned-Home-Office-admits-misleading-evidence-presented-juries.html I'm of the opinion that we need only execute one innocent to make the whole process shambolic and in need of change. It's expensive and may not suit those affected by the crime, but incarceration is the only suggestion I can offer at this time. TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 >Rope is cheap and very effective. My concern is the legal process which determines the recipient of the sentence. And if you were on the jury, could you be certain "beyond all reasonable doubt" considering you know you will be part responsible for that persons execution? TBT. I reckon I could in many circumstances, particularly if they were boasting about what they'd done as seems to be the fashion. >I reckon I could in many circumstances, Many circumstances...but for your conscience, surely it would have to be in every circumstance? >...particularly if they were boasting about what they'd done as seems to be the fashion. So every confession has a guilty person at its heart? No parent has ever falsely accepted liability for a crime of an offspring? Did Buster shield his cohorts from Court, only to subsequently 'spill the beans'? If you find the decision making process easy, give jury service a go - I have, and it wasn't. Ultimately, with a 'convicted' killer stood on the trapdoor, would you have the courage to throw the lever? And if that 'killer' were Stefan Kiszko...wouldn't you look a c**t? TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted November 9, 2014 Author Share Posted November 9, 2014 I agree with much, even most of what you say Border Terrier. But I deliberately chose the case of Breivik to illustrate my point. Do you not agree that there are cases that are far, far beyond all reasonable doubt whatsoever. The Stagg case is a fascinating one, but there were never any witnesses. It's a totally different case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 I agree with much, even most of what you say Border Terrier. But I deliberately chose the case of Breivik to illustrate my point. Do you not agree that there are cases that are far, far beyond all reasonable doubt whatsoever. The Stagg case is a fascinating one, but there were never any witnesses. It's a totally different case. >Do you not agree that there are cases that are far, far beyond all reasonable doubt whatsoever? Yes. As regards Breivik, woolley just hanged him. No wait, does he have a twin brother? And if so, could that twin brother have...you get my drift. But how would you discriminate between those cases which were marginal on evidence; say circumstantial? Would it be that the evidence would require more witnesses for a hanging than custodial sentence? Or that the person delivering the evidence should be a Professor, MHK, Consultant surgeon, holder of an MBE etc? Would an 'evidence formula' be necessary to determine the sentence? E.g. Would an MHK's evidence be worth 2 layman's etc. Would those unemployed/bin men/living in Ramsey etc. not be accepted for jury service on account of them not qualifying for the 'evidence formula'? Bump: And what sanction do we apply to those 'expert' witnesses who form opinions based not on fact, but on duping the jury with dodgy evidence to further their careers via the publicity of the trial? And if you're going to execute someone, you must be 100% certain, rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt"? TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted November 9, 2014 Author Share Posted November 9, 2014 You see....by your logic you wouldn't even have hanged the Nazis just in case there were a few Royals on their way to a Berlin fancy dress party at around the same time. Given the innumerable thousands of Hitler impersonators you'd even have found reasonable doubt for the Fuhrer, had he not of course done the job for us. You're taking the logic too far into the realm of abstract hypothetics. You're not a lawyer by any chance ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 You see....by your logic you wouldn't even have hanged the Nazis just in case there were a few Royals on their way to a Berlin fancy dress party at around the same time. Given the innumerable thousands of Hitler impersonators you'd even have found reasonable doubt for the Fuhrer, had he not of course done the job for us. You're taking the logic too far into the realm of abstract hypothetics. You're not a lawyer by any chance ? >You're not a lawyer by any chance ? I've been outed. I'm Nick Freeman (the irony in the surname isn't lost on many). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Freeman But in most of his cases he does have a point. Both the accused AND the Police/CPS have to abide by the law. Unfortunately by your logic, Stefan Kiszko would have swung. Bump, bump: And what sanction do we apply to those 'expert' witnesses who form opinions based not on fact, but on duping the jury with dodgy evidence to further their careers via the publicity of the trial? TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Whilst DNA evidence certainly isn't foolproof it is a huge step forward and wasn't around at the time when Kiszko was convicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Whilst DNA evidence certainly isn't foolproof it is a huge step forward and wasn't around at the time when Kiszko was convicted. Absolutely. And obviously in a case where it wasn't beyond doubt I would not convict. There has to be balance and at the moment it is just skewed in favour of the guilty and against the victim. ETA: TBT - 100% certain. Yes, I agree. Plenty of cases meet that requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 There are clearly cases where there is no doubt. Multiple, independent witnesses, followed by being caught virtually in the act. Anders Breivik being one, those two jihadists who tried to cut the head off Lee Rigby being two more. If I were a juror on those trials, I'd have no hesitation in returning a capital sentence if available. Identical twins?! Get real TBT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 Whilst DNA evidence certainly isn't foolproof it is a huge step forward and wasn't around at the time when Kiszko was convicted. Absolutely. And obviously in a case where it wasn't beyond doubt I would not convict. There has to be balance and at the moment it is just skewed in favour of the guilty and against the victim. ETA: TBT - 100% certain. Yes, I agree. Plenty of cases meet that requirement. >And obviously in a case where it wasn't beyond doubt I would not convict. Hmmm. So if the juror had to be 100% certain to prevent execution, could it be argued that he may err too high on the side of the accused, to assuage his own conscience? Thereby having the (counter-productive) problem of exonerating guilty parties. TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Border Terrier Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 There are clearly cases where there is no doubt. Multiple, independent witnesses, followed by being caught virtually in the act. Anders Breivik being one, those two jihadists who tried to cut the head off Lee Rigby being two more. If I were a juror on those trials, I'd have no hesitation in returning a capital sentence if available. Identical twins?! Get real TBT! >Identical twins?! Get real TBT! Plenty of husband/wife/partner duos murdered their offspring/children (Fred/Rose West, Hindley/Brady). Some found not guilty on account of it not being possible to determine which of the two committed the crime. So if it's difficult to legally separate such parties, surely a more onerous task - DNA wise - if the perpetrators are blood related? Granted for the obvious Breivik/Rigby murders the decision is easier...but again, what formula for justice - regarding execution/incarceration - is to be applied to those 'less obvious' cases? And regarding:- #85 "Whilst DNA evidence certainly isn't foolproof it is a huge step forward and wasn't around at the time when Kiszko was convicted." The evidence regarding Kiszko's impotence certainly was...meaning it was impossible for him to have provided the sample found on the deceased. The police at the time knew this, but chose not to disclose to the jury. Ronald Castree continued sexually assaulting children long after Kiszko was wrongly jailed for Castree's murder of Lesley Molseed. If Kiszko had swung, would the motivation to find the real killer been as justified? There's more than a hint of naivete on behalf of those implicitly believing every word the police say. The Hillsborough Inquiry starts off the list... http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/oct/20/hillsborough-inquest-ch-insp-is-covering-up-his-cover-up TBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 It seems that there's a variety of different opinions, but the main point is to whether this person is a psychopath or not? If he isn't, then this is treatable, but if he is, then please read my previous link. I do not wish to argue areas that I have little knowledge about, but the experts in psychology make a substantial case which I trust will be accepted as at least reasonable if not accepted as true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.