Kyle Clifford - does it make you think the death penalty in some cases might be right?

[mids2019]

Read about Kyle Clifford's crimes and although for most of my life objected to the death penalty actually found it difficult to find reasons in this case not to have it. I really just couldn't think of justification for keeping the guy alive as there. Is no hope of redemption, reformation or education leading to a man being able to renenter scoiety. We would be in a position of keeping someone alive for pets face it the ideological reasons we don't believe it is rig h for the state to forcibly take a life.

Maybe my mind might change but reading about that blokes crimes I think sometimes you do forfeit the right to life.

I think he will try to top himself again.

But that means if someone does do something worthy of the death penalty there is nothing to stop you doing the same again.

In the US the appeals and clemency hearings take 20 years, that's 20 years of legal bills paid, often, by the state.

It is 20 years of the families not knowing if the penalty will take place.

It should be quicker. Timothy McVeigh was executed quite quickly I think …

When sentencing, Donaldson, the judge on the Guildford 4 case, expressed regret he couldn't give 4 innocent people, one a minor, the death penalty. Denning, chief justice, expressed regret the obviously innnocent Birmingham 6 had not been hung as it would have avoided all the appeals.

@OchonAgusOchonOh When sentencing, Donaldson, the judge on the Guildford 4 case, expressed regret he couldn't give 4 innocent people, one a minor, the death penalty.

Wait for someone to pop up and say that it would have been unfortunate that 4 innocent people hung but the judge probably correctly sent 96 guilty people to the gallows, so it's not that bad.

I suspect you might not feel the same way if you or one of yours was one of the 4 innocents sent to the gallows. It's amazing how casual you are with other people's lives.

Bear in mind, the only crime they were guilty of was being Irish or, in the case of Carole Richardson, associating with Irish people. Anne Maguire was the epitomy of respectability but was still convicted of possession of bomb making equipment, as were her 14 and 17 year old sons.

Did you even read my post? If so then I think you misunderstood it. I was AGREEING with you and said someone else (the posters in favour of capital punishment) would pop up and say that.

Apologies. I did misunderstand. I thought you were critical of me popping up and decrying the hanging of innocents and justifying it on the grounds of the number of "correct" hangings.

I obviously need more caffeine 😁

@OchonAgusOchonOh No probs 🙂.

Not a good comparison, McVeigh was 100% guilty.

The Birmingham 6 were ‘100% guilty’. Until they weren’t.

Chris Mullin MP apparently framed the Sun headline ‘Looney MP backs bomb gang’ after the convictions were quashed but most people agreed with the Sun when it was published (after the first appeal).

According to the judiciary, the jury, the police and the general public, so too were the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4.

I’m not overly familiar with this case but wasn’t this conviction mostly based on their confessions?

So you really cannot compare to a case like McVeigh’s where there was CCTV evidence as well as well as evidence he purchased bomb materials (among other evidence tbh)

No, it was based on forensic evidence that showed several of them had handled explosives plus ‘IRA connections’ (which pretty much every Irish Catholic at the time could be said to have if you looked hard enough and defined ‘connections’ loosely enough).

There were (false) confessions but it was probably the rock solid physical evidence that convinced the jury. Also, at at least one court appearance the men showed visible injuries so it’s not like everyone didn’t know at the time that they’d been forced to confess.

Unfortunately, it turned out that the forensic evidence had been misinterpreted. I believe the expert gave evidence that the results gave 99% certainty several of them had handled explosives. In fact, the truth was that 99% of people who had handled explosives would give a positive result.

No evidence was given as to what percentage of people who hadn’t handled explosives would give a positive test (lots as it turned out). I think playing cards were shown to give a positive test result, for example.

The details above are from memory but I’m pretty sure they are correct.

On another ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’ point, the same sort of mistake did for Sally Clark. The Prosection expert took the risk of 1 cot death and squared it to get the risk of two cot deaths. This was of course complete rubbish. The babies had the same parents and lived in the same environment so if something affected one, it might well affect another.

Rock solid physical evidence and statistical analysis of the same is something the jury tend to trust 100%. Which is great until it turns out there is something wrong with the physical evidence in question.

In addition to the above, I think the police also hid evidence that might clear some of them but that’s based on my vague memory of Emma Thompson waving the ‘hide this’ note in court while Daniel Day Lewis glares at the police officers from the dock so that might be dramatic licence (although my understanding is that ‘In the Name of the Father’ was fairly accurate in regard to what happened in court).

I'll read this whole thread as I find it a really tricky topic and like to see opinions. But have to agree with a PP who says that making staff complicit in murder (though I wouldn't see it as such) by having them carry out the putting to death makes me feel awful. I was thinking about the shooters and how they felt. I could never do it but equally can see room for people opting to be euthanised but no good comes of any of it. Urgh. The world is unpleasant.

Nope. It was based on lots of evidence, including fabricated evidence and evidence hidden by the police. Plus the confessions were as a result of torture by the police.

It was also based on completely true evidence (forensic tests for explosives that gave a positive result) where either the expert lied about the meaning of the results or he didn’t understand it himself. I don’t think which has ever been established either way in court, has it?

If we only had the death penalty where there is independent forensic evidence of guilt, the Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 would absolutely be included.

To be honest, I was including the forensics as fabricated testimony. I can't believe that any expert would be so incompetent as to not know that the positive test could have come have come from a variety of sources, including playing cards. The victims of so-called British justice had been playing cards on the train home.

And don't forget that in 1987 channel 4 were banned from re-enacting portions of the litigation as it might undermine public confidence in the justice system. So they know they had stitched them up but didn't care.

Fair enough.

Never under any circumstances: 1. Because it’s totally hypocritical to say taking a life is wrong but then punish it by state sanctioned death 2. Because punishment should include deprivation of liberty for ( genuine and full term) life which in many ways is a worse punishment 3. Only very strange and unhinged people would want to take on the role of state sanctioned killer and I would question their mental health/ intentions 4. If there is only ONE case of mistaken identity/ miscarriage of justice that’s one state murder too many. 5. It prevents victims and/ or victims’ loved ones from ever having the opportunity ( at no matter how time distant) from speaking to the criminal - which some find healing further down the line 6. Families and children of violent criminals are often ostracised, traumatised etc and genuinely may have no awareness whatsoever of the crimes - to then see their family member ( no matter how evil) “ legally” murdered must only pile on the shame and trauma. 6. An eye for an eye mentality drags us back to the dark ages / less civilised societies , and only results in everyone being blinded.

I am generally against capital punishment, however we have seen some truly terrible crimes this year. The Nottingham and Southport Killings, the killing of John Hunt's wife and daughters and the Nicholas Prosper case where he blasted his mum and 2 siblings with a shotgun. I think that when such a crime is so abhorrent, that sentencing guidelines do not have a punishment harsh enough, then the case should be sent to a higher court, where all options are on the table, including the death penalty. I would go full medieval on some of these bastards.

And what about the ones who are most definitely guilty of an absolutely abhorrent crime but years later after they are executed we discover that evidence was faked or hidden, testimonies by experts were false or misleading or the confessions were beaten out of them by the police?

This is a hugely complex question, we all know that, sorry for stating the obvious. I don’t think the death penalty is a deterrent. It might be for some people who are committing robbery or drug related crimes, but I can’t see how it’s a deterrent for someone like Kyle Clifford. Or anyone else carrying out the type of crimes he has. Neither is it a just punishment, he would be dead, and that’s it. But what is that in comparison to being locked up for life? Is it less expensive for the tax payer? I don’t know. Then there’s the question of what prison should be for someone like him? Is he capable of rehabilitation. Personally I don’t think so, although I am very in favour of prison as rehabilitation for other crimes. So you’re looking at a whole life tariff. And if he is rehabilitated (by some miracle!) and is truly remorseful, and understands that the thinking that led him to do this is abhorrent he’s in there for life. I think that’s far the better punishment. And yes to prisoners working the land, etc., but how that looks in practice is for better brains than me!

I'm so glad he didn't die when he tried to take his life. Seeing him sobbing the in the police interview was great. Kyle knew full well he would spend the rest of his life rotting in a jail cell and wanted to take the cowards way out. Let him rot, against his wishes!!!