This is why we should bring back the death penalty

[bluewanda]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14918815/drug-addicted-cross-dresser-abused-lover-murder-son-hospital-ward.html

(One example of many.)

So we're going to have two classes of murder conviction - one where we're "nearly sure" someone is guilty and another one where we're "really sure"?

Can't seen any problems arising from that.....

What he did was awful but the state must never ever again be given the go ahead to kill its citizens based on their membership of a certain category of person (or any other reason for that matter). If those categories are murderers, paedophiles etc you may argue why not? But all it takes is a future rogue government to expand who qualifies and many of us would be in a lot of bother, especially if our human rights are whittled away as so many, bizarrely seem to support. Disability benefits/pensions/unemployment benefits getting a bit costly? There's a solution to that. By that stage the majority of the population would be desensitised to it and too apathetic or scared to do anything. It sounds dramatic and ridiculous but it's not and it could happen. We need to stop it before it starts.

If you did cut people hands off for stealing, there would be a lot less theft around.
Another thing that's out of control.
People don't even go to.prison for stealing now.

If killing people is wrong, then the state shouldn't do it.

If the state does it, then we're saying that killing people isn't always wrong. It depends.

And that opens up a philosophical and practical set of questions that can't be answered by introducing a law.

Just take them.out the back and shoot them between the eyes.
I resent my taxes going towards these scumheads alive.
Money could be much better spent.

Absolute drain on society and don't contribute anything good.
Problem never goes away either while you keep them alive.
The next problem is when to release them, what if they do it again etc etc. How long is long enough.
By taking them out there is none of this to worry about.

If her friend has Snapchat have you reported this to the prison?

Tie a noose round their neck at the moment the verdict is read. When the foreman of the juror says guilty, a trap door opens and they are hung on the spot. It would save so much time and money.

I already answered that in my comment. No doubt.

How would that work if evidence has been suppressed? For the types of cases where the death penalty would be applied suppression of evidence could be refused.

Take them ‘out the back’ of where?

who is shooting them? Where’s the firearm coming from?

How would people know about suppressed evidence? It's been suppressed, the courts don't know about it

This isn’t a dig at people against the death penalty but what punishment does fit this individual crime? What would be fair? What would even up the scales of justice so to speak? What punishment fits what that child had to go through? I can’t think of one except death. Feeding it, keeping it in reasonable humane living conditions, access to water etc, is that punishment? The only punishment really is lack of liberty, but that person didn’t use his ‘liberty’ in the way a normal person would, he didn’t value his liberty. So, the pain that he inflicted on that child, goes unpunished. You cannot compare killing someone like him with the death penalty to the killing that he inflicted on that baby. It’s not the same, in any way, it wouldn’t make us ‘as bad as him’. It’s not even remotely the same thing. I am against the death penalty simply because of the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. If it was used for killers such as Ian Huntley, who killed those girls by his own admission, then I’m all for it. But that would be impossible to decide.

Don’t they?

I could’ve sworn we have plenty where I work…do you know different then??

Even when we had the death penalty there was a period where you could appeal the sentence.
Any progress with finding figures that prove it's a deterrent?

Another one who doesn't realise that even when the death penalty exists there are processes to appeal the sentence.

Life imprisonment. It’s not retribution-we don’t do that in a civilized society.

@PassingStranger You seem to have a very warped idea of the sort of society we live in, with 'shitty horrible people' constantly going around shagging, getting pregnant, taking drugs and stealing. I'm glad I don't live where you live! I'm also glad I don't live in a society that shames women for getting pregnant, insists they get married and stay married, chops people's hands off for stealing and has the death penalty.

*edited to include the name of the person I was addressing.

Ok. Are you volunteering for the job? Or are you thinking someone else will do the dirty work for you?

How sure would you need to be before returning a guilty verdict? Would beyond reasonable doubt be enough if you knew the person in front of you would die as a result? Bearing in mind the defendant will have a team of people who's actual job is to put doubt in your mind...

The fact is, where the death penalty is a likely sentence, juries are much less likely to return a guilty verdict, so the reality is more people get no punishment at all.

Suppression of evidence isn't a thing here in the UK anyway. You could argue about cases collapsing due to disclosure issues.
Hundreds of cases dropped over evidence disclosure failings - BBC News

This is irrelevant to cut and dry cases though, and these are the types of cases where the death penalty should apply.

We know without a doubt Axel stabbed multiple girls. He should be dead. It's that simple.

I agree with you Op. There are plenty of vile criminals who we KNOW have committed the crimes. Why are we keeping people like the Moors murderers and the West's alive? We are all paying taxes to keep people alive who don't deserve to be here, and who can never be released. It would rid the planet of scum and make more room in the jails for lesser criminals.

In the Lesley Molseed case the police suppressed evidence that would have shown Stefan Kiszko was innocent.

Would that case have been a no doubt one?

@RemusLupinsBiggestGroupie What are you saying the name can't be cross-referenced in google and with court reports?

So EVERYthing the DM says is wrong? You sound like a political purist who would argue you shouldn't trust 2+2=4 if it was reported in the DM.

The DM cannot legally defame and write stories with names. I would have thought that was common sense. But no. Some people who hate the DM don't possess critical thinking.

Do you think juries will find people guilty if this is the process? Immediate death in front of them. No chance of appeals and the horrific sight of someone dying? The conviction rate would plummet

Oddly enough forensics and DNA testing have moved on from the 1970s.

That is a ridiculous example.

Yes they did indeed suggest that. It is very shallow, ignorant and narrow-minded to suggest that just because it's in the DM, that it's not reliable.

The issue there wasn't the science. It was that the science was suppressed and not given to the defence, or shown in court. DNA did catch the real killer years later but there was enough evidence to find him not guilty in the 70s

Specifically, he could not produce sperm and sperm was found at the murder scene.

Other things that went against him was children making up evidence, and people who could place him away from the murder scene at the time were not called in evidence.