Schoolboy killer sentenced to life imprisonment

[Shake me up Judy]

Put the crayons down now C.C. We get the picture.

[woolley]

Is it me?

[The Border Terrier]

Ceaseless Change: I haven't changed my tune at all. Punishment should always fit the crime. I never said there were no shades of grey. Don't know where you got that idea. You are the one trying to avoid the messy reality. The messy reality I am concerned about here is that of innocent blood on the streets and how to minimise it.

 

I stick by "plenty of cases where you can be 100% certain." I was actually listening to TBT but then he went off into flights of fancy about identical twins and such nonsense, so I lost interest. Not credible IMO. If in doubt, then of course, don't convict or bring a lesser charge in the first place.

 

You keep accusing me of being offensive when you are the one accusing me of being a nazi sympathiser, wanting to execute "our children", telling me I need to get my head examined, I'm an idiot, I'm talking shit, I'm not living in the real world, I can shove it up my etc, etc. I assure you that I can teach you nothing about being offensive. You are extremely good at it, but of course in your world I'm the insensitive one. I suggest you look in the mirror on that one and as for growing up and discussing it like an adult, that is difficult when debating with one who makes little sense and frequently becomes strident (see above).

 

I did not say you had no concern for innocent victims, incidentally. I assumed you would have from what you have written. I asked you where that concern was. I still wonder what form that takes and I note you didn't answer.

 

Release and rehabilitation is not a circular argument. You can never be sure of rehabilitation success, and it is a much less precise science nowadays than the avoidance of mistaken identity that you and TBT are so concerned about.

Quote: When I say release them if they have been rehabilitated, I mean literally that. I mean, they have genuinely been rehabilitated, as far as professional specialists have been able to tell, beyond reasonable doubt you might say. In which case BY DEFINITION that person would be a very low risk of reoffending. And so when you say "all of the subsequent crimes we see by the "rehabilitated, no longer a danger" fraternity" you are just talking shit - you are begging the question. If you go on to reoffend BY DEFINITION you were not rehabilitated. Semantics and I'm sure you know it. I put the "rehabilitated, no longer a danger" in inverted commas advisedly. It is precisely my point that although they were judged to be safe, evidently they weren't. Professional specialists, eh? No consolation to the person lying in a pool of blood on the street or in their home is it? Oh dear. Looks like he wasn't rehabilitated after all. Sorry. These things happen. Is that good enough for you? It's not good enough for me.

 

This business about mistaken identity is in any case off at a tangent to the crux of the matter. It seems to me that you do not feel that the state should execute anyone no matter what, even if the crime was heinous and the identity was a cast iron certainty. You and TBT are hiding that behind all of these other side issues. If you are saying it should never be done whatever the circumstances then I can at least respect your currently fashionable and state adopted point of view, even though I disagree and believe you are profoundly wrong.

 

>about identical twins and such nonsense...Not credible IMO. If in doubt, then of course, don't convict or bring a lesser charge in the first place.

 

If you can't identify the correct culprit...then how do you convict?

 

But more important than that, is the numbers of police officers and Home Office forensics staff than aren't truthful. Juries give credence to their evidence and convict. Can't remember the actual case but one forensic technician wasn't checking the work (fingerprints,DNA,bullets etc, can't remember which) but claiming the overtime and falsifying records to justify his timesheet.

 

E.g. The police have a target for clear up rates. Billy Burglar has been caught red handed at the scene...attired in a black and white stripy shirt carrying a bag marked 'swag' etc. Police say they have other evidence to convict on other crimes and ask him to cough. He declines as he didn't commit all of them. So they charge offence #1 and every time he's released they bring new charges. So Billy has to cough to all his crimes PLUS the ones the police need to enhance their 'clear up' statistics. The reality being, the criminal for those additional crimes is still at large.

 

Then there's the career 'expert witness' favoured by the prosecution to lend his authority to the case. Plenty of 'profilers' (Paul Britton - criminal psychologist behind the Colin Stagg honeytrap) in this category. And isn't there always a book deal to swell the coffers? Plenty of Detective Sergeant's wanting the next promotion so 'lose' evidence that compromises their case or doctor evidence to enhance it.

 

So just before you scoff at the identical twin defence (hanging the wrong sibling, and I wonder just how robust your conscience to deal with that scenario).

 

http://io9.com/dna-evidence-cant-tell-identical-twins-apart-in-rape-c-1182649778

 

check the prosecution evidence with a very fine toothcomb. As in the Hillsborough Inquiry, that's non too reliable either!

 

And as CC politely requests. How many miscarriages of justice are acceptable?

 

The M25 three, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven...need I continue?

 

And again the unanswered question from # 79

 

"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?"

 

Should those who pervert the course of justice to gain conviction be subject to the same penalties as the accused?

 

TBT.

[Ceaseless Change]

It's ships in the night, TBT..... ships in the night.

[woolley]

Answer to some of the points raised by CC and TBT without engaging once more in extreme verbosity:

 

Threshold of certainty for execution of murderers: 100%, and yes, I believe it is possible. I stand by my assessment that with modern day forensics there will be no shortage of cases meeting this requirement. I am sure that most of us could name several cases off the top of our heads where there isn't the slightest doubt. What of the Lee Rigby murder case or the Fiona Bone case? 100% cast iron by any test. The 100% certainty threshold may well mean that we are talking about relatively few cases. The principle however would be established, that if you kill you go in peril of your own life. That is the aim. It is not about revenge. It is about justice and pour encourager les autres.

 

I don't buy the mistaken identity line, identical twins etc. It's just too fanciful. The cases you cite are now historical. Police procedure is much more by the book nowadays than even 15 years ago and the science at their disposal has advanced out of all recognition.

 

As to how many innocent people it is acceptable to execute, well obviously, none. I think I have covered that above. We have to have certainty. Where there is doubt then lesser charges or life sentences (meaning locked up until death) are available. I have to ask you the opposite question though. How many innocent people is it acceptable to have attacked, raped, murdered etc. by previous offenders who were thought to be rehabilitated but in reality were every bit as dangerous as they were the first time around? And nobody has answered that satisfactorily. All you have said quite indignantly is: "ah, but they obviously weren't rehabilitated so it's a circular argument". Good call Columbo, but what's the answer? Is that just bad luck?

 

You make a valid point about perverting the course of justice. I would agree that anyone doing so to secure a conviction should be punished to the full extent of the law, whoever they are.

 

Finally, yes CC I can read, but I will admit that wading through gibberish is not my strong point.

[Ceaseless Change]

How many innocent people is it acceptable to have attacked, raped, murdered etc. by previous offenders who were thought to be rehabilitated but in reality were every bit as dangerous as they were the first time around? And nobody has answered that satisfactorily.

 

Finally, yes CC I can read,

 

If you think that question hasn't been answered over and over, you really haven't been reading.

 

The acceptable number is zero. OBVIOUSLY. So we are left with a choice - you either take as small a risk as possible, and release those people you really are as sure as you can be that are safe to be released, or you release no-one, ever. Whole life sentences for all and every even vaguely violent crime. Get in regular fights in pubs? Life sentence. Drink drive repeatedly? Life sentence.

 

Now, that is one way to run things. It might also be a slight overreaction.

 

However, you are still not living in the real world when it comes to this 100% certainty of execution nonsense.. You seem to think that it is actually possible, in the real world, to have a perfect system that is capable of never executing an innocent person, ever. Despite that never having been achieved by any society, ever.

 

So I ask again - what is your secret? And why hasn't anyone else thought of it before? And why aren't they doing it RIGHT NOW, this magic perfect judicial system, in Texas, perhaps, or China, or Iran?

 

(Hint: Because it isn't actually possible, is it?)

[woolley]

It is you who is not listening. Please re-read previous post.

 

We are talking about MURDERERS, not vaguely violent people or drink drivers.

 

We are talking about the likes of the murders of Fiona Bone and Lee Rigby. 100% certainty. Did you not see the bit about how we deal with cases where there is doubt? It's all there.

 

And the rehabilitated who are not really rehabilitated. No, you haven't answered it time and again. You haven't answered it satisfactorily even once. All you have said is release those who you are sure as you can be are safe to be released. Well that hasn't worked has it? Unless we are prepared to accept the diabolical consequences.

[Ceaseless Change]

The question still stands!

 

what is your secret? And why hasn't anyone else thought of it before? And why aren't they doing it RIGHT NOW, this magic perfect judicial system, in Texas, perhaps, or China, or Iran?

 

And as for not answering your "rehabilitated but not" challenge, I have, over and over. Rehabilitated beyond reasonable doubt. The same standard of proof for locking people up for public safety, should be used for releasing potentially seriously dangerous people. Simple. Ok? I've referred to that multiple times, but if you still don't get it, I can't help you.

 

So the onus is still on you to explain the rationality of never releasing anyone dangerous, ever, even if nobody can come up with any credible reason why that might be a danger to anyone, or more dangerous to anyone than any other random member of the law abiding public.

 

And to answer the other question, in bold, which I think i've now asked three times...

[woolley]

All been answered. Capital punishment only where you can be 100% certain. I have even given you examples. You are wilfully ignoring this because it doesn't suit your argument. You are answering nothing regarding the failure of rehabilitation leading to further victims. You are continually going around in circles to avoid the point.

[The Border Terrier]

Answer to some of the points raised by CC and TBT without engaging once more in extreme verbosity:

 

Threshold of certainty for execution of murderers: 100%, and yes, I believe it is possible. I stand by my assessment that with modern day forensics there will be no shortage of cases meeting this requirement. I am sure that most of us could name several cases off the top of our heads where there isn't the slightest doubt. What of the Lee Rigby murder case or the Fiona Bone case? 100% cast iron by any test. The 100% certainty threshold may well mean that we are talking about relatively few cases. The principle however would be established, that if you kill you go in peril of your own life. That is the aim. It is not about revenge. It is about justice and pour encourager les autres.

 

I don't buy the mistaken identity line, identical twins etc. It's just too fanciful. The cases you cite are now historical. Police procedure is much more by the book nowadays than even 15 years ago and the science at their disposal has advanced out of all recognition.

 

As to how many innocent people it is acceptable to execute, well obviously, none. I think I have covered that above. We have to have certainty. Where there is doubt then lesser charges or life sentences (meaning locked up until death) are available. I have to ask you the opposite question though. How many innocent people is it acceptable to have attacked, raped, murdered etc. by previous offenders who were thought to be rehabilitated but in reality were every bit as dangerous as they were the first time around? And nobody has answered that satisfactorily. All you have said quite indignantly is: "ah, but they obviously weren't rehabilitated so it's a circular argument". Good call Columbo, but what's the answer? Is that just bad luck?

 

You make a valid point about perverting the course of justice. I would agree that anyone doing so to secure a conviction should be punished to the full extent of the law, whoever they are.

 

Finally, yes CC I can read, but I will admit that wading through gibberish is not my strong point.

 

>I don't buy the mistaken identity line... It's just too fanciful.

 

Jean Charles Menenez (1978-2005) murdered by British Police in a case of mistaken identity.

Stephen Waldorf was shot and severely injured by British Police in a case of mistaken identity.

> I am sure that most of us could name several cases off the top of our heads where there isn't the slightest doubt.

> The 100% certainty threshold may well mean that we are talking about relatively few cases.

 

Hmmm. So which is it? “We can all name several cases” or “relatively few cases”?

 

And if it is “relatively few cases” then why push for a change in the Law?

>The principle however would be established, that if you kill you go in peril of your own life.

 

And if a criminal is to be executed if convicted, could he become more violent and risk “being hanged for sheep as for a lamb”. Might he plead not guilty and force a trial (and almost certainly lodge an appeal if his life were at risk), where he could consider pleading guilty for a custodial sentence.

 

> You make a valid point about perverting the course of justice. I would agree that anyone doing so to secure a conviction should be punished to the full extent of the law, whoever they are.

 

Would you advocate execution for those police officers perverting the course of justice that could involve the execution of an innocent man e.g. the Stefan Kiszko case.

And if the convicted party weren’t executed, but say won on appeal, would the police officer still be subject to execution as the 'intent' is relevant?

 

TBT.

[Ceaseless Change]

All been answered. Capital punishment only where you can be 100% certain. I have even given you examples. You are wilfully ignoring this because it doesn't suit your argument. You are answering nothing regarding the failure of rehabilitation leading to further victims. You are continually going around in circles to avoid the point.

 

Good grief.

 

Capital punishment

 

I will try one more time. It's a simple point. You are saying "only execute where it is 100%". Now, I've never heard of a system, anywhere, ever, that hasn't aimed for that. And I'm also not aware of a system, anywhere, ever, that has achieved it. Ever.

 

And yet here you are, Woolley the genius, claiming that "all you have to do" is be pickier - only execute the ones you're REALLY 100% sure about, as opposed to all the other ones that you're only averagely 100% sure about.

 

And you expect us to just take that at face value. Without any revelatory insight in to how you have become the only person in the universe to know how to pull this off with a zero % error rate.

 

You say "science is better now", as if that just explains it away. Wave your hands - science man! Yeah! Then you must be claiming that science has recently advanced so much as to make it literally impossible for an innocent person to be executed, as long as everyone just pays attention and makes sure they are really, really, really sure. Despite the police corruption TBT has given examples of. Or any of the other many many reasons why this is just a pipe dream.

 

But for you, being really, really, really, sure, is infallible. Because Science - DNA! Woo! I'm sorry, that's just an appeal to something I think you are not remotely qualified to opine on. Where is the link to this world changing scientific progress? I've not heard about Texas proclaiming that at long last, executions will only ever be perfomed on those where there is literally no chance of it being a miscarriage of justice. How do you explain that exactly?

 

Maybe you could offer your services to humanity, and be the sole infallible arbiter of execution decisions. Seeing as you seem to be the only person alive who thinks they can do it perfectly.

 

Rehabilitation

 

I've talked so many times about the failures in rehabilitating criminals, I don't even know where to start repeating myself. But i'll try.

 

1) We both agree rehabilitation fails far too often. I've never claimed otherwise, and indeed an unrehabilitated criminal who was released early killed someone very close to me. You've ignored this before, with quite extravagant insensitivity, and as far as I can see have done so again - just conveniently forgotten it.

 

2) Where we disagree, as far as I can tell, is on whether it is worth taking a risk on releasing any criminal, ever, and if it is worth the risk, how much of a risk should you take. Now my view is that we should release rehabilitated criminals, but we are currently making too many mistakes in making those decisions. I THINK that your position is that nothing is worth the risk, at least for certain very serious crimes, and so the interests of the public should trump those of the criminal, and no matter how small the risk of them reoffending is, in your view that's still tough on them, they are going to stay locked up.

 

In a nut shell, I am saying we should raise the burden of proof on releasing potentially dangerous criminals - release fewer, raise the standards higher, keep more locked up longer until they meet that higher burden of proof - to reduce the risk to a significant degree, but being realistic this wouldn't eliminate the risk entirely. You are saying - throw away the key. Any risk is too much of a risk.

 

3) You still haven't actually unequivocally said you agree that rehabilitation is even possible. You dismissively rejected the research of a professor in criminology, which is impressive arrogance, unless you yourself are a professional criminologist? Thought not. You've avoided this question yourself, so get off the fence. Is rehabilitation possible? And if it is, why are you so opposed to it? I've asked this before.. to no avail....

 

Now there are many problems with such an extreme position as yours (i.e. don't take a single risk ever with releasing anyone who might be or has been dangerous in the past, no matter how low the risk seems to be). TBT has touched on them, e.g. if there is no incentive to reform, no light at the end of the tunnel, then you may well end up with more extreme attempts to evade arrest, evade justice - you might end up with more police murders, for instance. And i've also talked about the financial costs of whole life incarceration too, compared to returning people to actually being economically productive.

 

But I think the follow on consequences of your views don't really interest you - you're focused on the principle, and what is "just", in your view. I think TBT and I are more pragmatic than that - it's the actual real world total consequences that we are worried about, not some satisfying idea of justice that in the real world leads to counterproductive results.

 

You're most concerned with preventing crime, as much as possible. And fair enough. But you don't seem to accept/realise that your extreme views on this would very likely have unintended consequences that increase crime rates not decrease them in some areas.

 

"100% of executed criminals don't reoffend" is childish rhetoric, and a massive massive oversimplification. It ignores the consequences of miscarriages of justice, it ignores the wasted productivity of criminals executed who could actually have been rehabilitated, it ignores the trauma that imposes on the criminal's innocent loved ones, it ignores the negative effects of the death penalty on wider culture and social ties, and it ignores the fact that despite what you personally would do in those circumstances, far from all victims of serious crime actually want to see the perpetrator executed.

 

 

Anyway - all the above is just a restatement of stuff i've said in other ways, many times already. If even this isn't clear enough for you, then I really can't help you. Ships in the night indeed.

[woolley]

 

>I don't buy the mistaken identity line... It's just too fanciful.

 

Jean Charles Menenez (1978-2005) murdered by British Police in a case of mistaken identity.

Stephen Waldorf was shot and severely injured by British Police in a case of mistaken identity.

What has this to do with a criminal investigation? It was hot pursuit.

> I am sure that most of us could name several cases off the top of our heads where there isn't the slightest doubt.

> The 100% certainty threshold may well mean that we are talking about relatively few cases.

 

Hmmm. So which is it? “We can all name several cases” or “relatively few cases”?

 

And if it is “relatively few cases” then why push for a change in the Law?

Relatively few against the total number. No inconsistency. And why push for the change? Well, because when the muderer does his business, he or she will not be aware whether his act will put him in the relatively few cases or not. Currently, they know that their miserable neck is untouchable.

>The principle however would be established, that if you kill you go in peril of your own life.

 

And if a criminal is to be executed if convicted, could he become more violent and risk “being hanged for sheep as for a lamb”. Might he plead not guilty and force a trial (and almost certainly lodge an appeal if his life were at risk), where he could consider pleading guilty for a custodial sentence.

Very good. More violent than the killers of Lee Rigby or others? Pleading guily for a custodial sentence? Not in my world they wouldn't.

 

> You make a valid point about perverting the course of justice. I would agree that anyone doing so to secure a conviction should be punished to the full extent of the law, whoever they are.

 

Would you advocate execution for those police officers perverting the course of justice that could involve the execution of an innocent man e.g. the Stefan Kiszko case.

And if the convicted party weren’t executed, but say won on appeal, would the police officer still be subject to execution as the 'intent' is relevant?

Well the threat would certainly be there if the perversion of justice in that instance had led to a miscarriage of justice and the wrong person had been executed. As a side benefit this would concentrate minds and there would be far less chance of such things happening . I suppose that such a prosecution would not proceed until the primary case had concluded including any appeals and at that stage the prosecution would have to decide the charge to be levelled on a case by case basis. You also need to realise that the Stefan Kiszko case is historical and he would not have been charged today. Things have changed.

 

TBT.

 

[The Border Terrier]

Is it a case of IF you make a mistake and hang the wrong man?

 

Or WHEN you make a mistake and hang the wrong man?

 

History dictates that the latter is the more likely of the two so a custodial sentence is preferable.

 

Conversely does a potential capital sentence dissuade murderers committing their crimes?

 

And what ratio would be acceptable? Executing 10/20/30 or 300 'genuine' killers (and thus potentially saving xx lives in the future) to inadvertently executing one innocent?

 

If you want to convince the public of the need to change, let's have some numbers.

 

TBT.

 

And just out of interest, could anybody let me have have a photograph of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?

[woolley]

"And just out of interest, could anybody let me have have a photograph of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon?"

 

Your last sentence says more than all the rest of it put together.

[The Border Terrier]

If I were on the jury for the case involving Flight 77, I'd want some convincing that the accused and/or accomplices actually did fly a 757 into the Pentagon.

 

I'd start by wanting to see proof. And if there's no cctv evidence - surrounding the most guarded building in the western world! - I'd be curious as to why not.

 

And to prevent another miscarriage of justice I'd have to be 100% certain. The very least the prosecution would require - in part, to substantiate their case - is a photo.

 

Incidentally, if anybody does have a photo, get yourself down to Reuters quick smart, after a 13 year fruitless search they'll be willing to part with £'s for a copy.

 

TBT.