This is why we should bring back the death penalty

I think it’s far more than merely the existence of the death penalty. It exists in the USA after all.

You can use statistics to support almost any point you'd like to make. That's not to say we should dismiss statistics and actual facts, but we should look deeper into where the numbers are coming from without accepting everything at face value. A sample size of 10 (in your previous example) means nothing statistically.

We should also use common sense and the evidence of our own eyes. I've asked you before - why is Singapore so safe? If you can provide an alternative explanation, I'm open to it.

It’s quite ridiculous isn’t it.
Best ignored that poster

So. 3 verdicts. Innocent, Guilty and Very Guilty.

So we’re taking motive into account now!

But at the time of her conviction there was little doubt in most peoples minds. Certainly not in the juries minds. Some people want conviction and death the next day so that makes mistakes even more likely to occur.

If it were to be considered you would need a very robust system for appeals and as has been pointed out many times that costs a lot more than life imprisonment

One would hope everyone in prison is guilty but we know that isn't always the case, which is why the death penalty should be reserved for specific cases.

Take for instance the father who just ran over and killed that knife wielding thief for attacking his son, it's not in the same league as stabbing young girls to death for no reason, but both are murder charges.

Just the kinds of countries we want to aspire to live in.

what people don’t seem to realise is that stripping away human rights for one sector of society is a slippery slope.

not one country where the death penalty is carried out immediately has any kind of human rights. So the question is, if you’re happy for murderers’ human rights to be removed like this which of your own rights would you be prepared to lose. Because it wouldn’t end there.

So. 3 verdicts. Innocent, Guilty and Very Guilty.

So. 3 verdicts. Innocent, Guilty and Very Guilty.

So you would have been happy for her to be executed after her trial?

What on earth is your meaning then? These are the points we seem to agree on: 1. There are very bad crimes. 2. There are crimes which are easy to prove. 3. These may or may not be the same crimes.

What point are you making with that? And why didn't you just say it instead of saying one is usually the other, which rather implies you're, you know, linking the two concepts?

Let's be honest - you're arguing black is white.

I feel like it's demeaning to engage in this drivel any further. It's just frustrating to see how utterly confident and lacking in any doubt those posters are who are pushing for extreme solutions are. I have no doubt the death penalty would return on the basis of a popular referendum and it would be down to nonsense like this.

To be honest I don't know enough about the case to make an informed decision, but my feeling is that she is guilty after seeing her diary extracts which was effectively an admission.

Many people are now suggesting she is a victim of unfortunate circumstances. I haven't looked into the reasons for that.

What are your feelings about Lucy Letby?

Yes heinous does mean that. Yes I have said the cut and dried cases are often (not always) the most heinous.

What I haven't done is linked the 'strength of evidence to the severity of the crime' as you have suggested. There are heinous crimes that remain unsolved due to a lack of evidence, it doesn't make them any less heinous. Nor does it mean crimes that have an abundance of evidence are automatically worse.

So yes, I'd say you are twisting my meaning.

I agree there is a difference. I haven't disputed that. Regarding the revenge vs justice we will just have to disagree but that is the crux of it really isn't it....
Whether a person feels it is justified or not.

When I consider how much a prisoner costs, how many continue their violence whilst inside, plus own beliefs on 'an eye for an eye' I feel it is justified.

Of course I accept others feel differently and do appreciate the wrongful conviction argument. I just feel that could be avoided nowadays, hence my feeling of execution being an option in cases that leave no doubt at all, such as Axel in Southport or Rose West for example.

There's a huge difference between the two. One is to save lives right there and then, the other barbaric revenge.

and I'm calling it "revenge" as that's what it is, it's not justice.

There's a huge difference between the two. One is to save lives right there and then, the other barbaric revenge.

and I'm calling it "revenge" as that's what it is, it's not justice.

Yes of course they are different. My point is, we sanction killing in certain scenarios, so sanctioning the execution of our worst criminals isn't too far removed in my opinion.

What you call 'revenge' many would call justice.

I’m not twisting anything.

I understand perfectly well what you’ve written, but it seems you don’t or perhaps you just won’t admit you’ve made a mistake.

Heinous means particularly dreadful or wrong. I.e. describing a crime as heinous is quite literally commenting on its severity. You have linked this to the likelihood of a crime being ‘cut and dried’.

So, how am I twisting what you’ve said?