|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 21, 2023 20:38:48 GMT
Agree, as a nation we are too gobbled up with political correctness than actually getting things done which is why things are as bad as they are So you’d be comfortable with putting an innocent person to the death penalty because that would happen at some point like it has on many occasions in the USA? Where I’d agree is with sentences being too lenient. In this case, life without parole is absolutely spot on IMO. I know this might sound controversial but for the way she abused her position of employment and trust, and the way that she killed or attempted to kill several innocent people, she doesn't deserve to live |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 21, 2023 23:04:05 GMT
So you’d be comfortable with putting an innocent person to the death penalty because that would happen at some point like it has on many occasions in the USA? Where I’d agree is with sentences being too lenient. In this case, life without parole is absolutely spot on IMO. I know this might sound controversial but for the way she abused her position of employment and trust, and the way that she killed or attempted to kill several innocent people, she doesn't deserve to live I get the thinking behind it as I used to be all for capital punishment but the more I researched into how it works, the less of a fan I became. To me, it means we've hardly evolved away from our past if we were to resort back to an eye for an eye method. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 21, 2023 23:22:11 GMT
I know this might sound controversial but for the way she abused her position of employment and trust, and the way that she killed or attempted to kill several innocent people, she doesn't deserve to live I get the thinking behind it as I used to be all for capital punishment but the more I researched into how it works, the less of a fan I became. To me, it means we've hardly evolved away from our past if we were to resort back to an eye for an eye method. In the past in this country, going back a few centuries it was used for a lot of crimes. Not saying all murders should be punished by death, but this was an extreme crime. The punishment fits the crime, but some people are screaming for her to be executed, and she's lucky to not live in the USA |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 22, 2023 8:40:59 GMT
I know this might sound controversial but for the way she abused her position of employment and trust, and the way that she killed or attempted to kill several innocent people, she doesn't deserve to live I get the thinking behind it as I used to be all for capital punishment but the more I researched into how it works, the less of a fan I became. To me, it means we've hardly evolved away from our past if we were to resort back to an eye for an eye method. I think it would work but it would need a number of measures. Just off the top of my head 1) A solicitor would had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person committed the crime and this would be subject to numerous reviews. 2) The case would have to be independently audited, to ensure that nothing is missed and there are no irregularities. 3) The Supreme Court would have to recommend the death penalty and only by a unanimous decisions from a group of judges. 4) Only the Home Secretary would br able to sign off the request and only after the majority approval of the cabinet and potentially parliament. So even if we had it there would be a lot of hoops to jump through to actually secure it. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 22, 2023 8:50:14 GMT
I get the thinking behind it as I used to be all for capital punishment but the more I researched into how it works, the less of a fan I became. To me, it means we've hardly evolved away from our past if we were to resort back to an eye for an eye method. I think it would work but it would need a number of measures. Just off the top of my head 1) A solicitor would had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person committed the crime and this would be subject to numerous reviews. 2) The case would have to be independently audited, to ensure that nothing is missed and there are no irregularities. 3) The Supreme Court would have to recommend the death penalty and only by a unanimous decisions from a group of judges. 4) Only the Home Secretary would br able to sign off the request and only after the majority approval of the cabinet and potentially parliament. So even if we had it there would be a lot of hoops to jump through to actually secure it. As much as I can understand the case for it I am against capital punishment. I have seen too many miscarriages of justice in my life time. It is bad enough people are released after 20 years imprisonment for crimes they did not commit. How do you even begin to rectify the situation if you have executed them. Sure people were convinced of their guilt when they were convicted. And it is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt. I love how people are described as innocent when found not guilty. This is not the case, just there was not enough evidence to prove their guilt. Does not mean they did not commit the crime. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 22, 2023 8:54:57 GMT
I think it would work but it would need a number of measures. Just off the top of my head 1) A solicitor would had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person committed the crime and this would be subject to numerous reviews. 2) The case would have to be independently audited, to ensure that nothing is missed and there are no irregularities. 3) The Supreme Court would have to recommend the death penalty and only by a unanimous decisions from a group of judges. 4) Only the Home Secretary would br able to sign off the request and only after the majority approval of the cabinet and potentially parliament. So even if we had it there would be a lot of hoops to jump through to actually secure it. As much as I can understand the case for it I am against capital punishment. I have seen to many miscarriages of justice in my life time. It is bad enough people are released after 20 years imprisonment for crimes they did not commit. How do even begin to rectify the situation if you have executed them. Sure people were convinced of their guilt when they were convicted. But that is why in my mind you would have all of these measures in place so at no point after the fact could someone say “oh we missed this”. Besides the way our country works these days they’d never actually get to that point. Look how long it’s taken to get Crossrail going, HS2 and the, still being debated, Heathrow T6/third runway. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 22, 2023 9:01:01 GMT
As much as I can understand the case for it I am against capital punishment. I have seen to many miscarriages of justice in my life time. It is bad enough people are released after 20 years imprisonment for crimes they did not commit. How do even begin to rectify the situation if you have executed them. Sure people were convinced of their guilt when they were convicted. But that is why in my mind you would have all of these measures in place so at no point after the fact could someone say “oh we missed this”. Besides the way our country works these days they’d never actually get to that point. Look how long it’s taken to get Crossrail going, HS2 and the, still being debated, Heathrow T6/third runway. I would not be convinced unless they personally had freely and duressly free confessed to the crimes. If someone insists they're innocent, I don't think any level of proof will be enough. 99.9999% is not good enough. This, even more so when there have been cases where evidence that could support a defence case has been suppressed. If it can't be 100% sure there is no corruption in the legal process, you can not have capital punishment. How would you ever get to a state where the process is infallible? And what do you do when it has been found to be? How would you tell the relatives, I am sorry? "We killed your father for something we have since established he did not do, but please please accept our apologies for it." |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 22, 2023 10:20:30 GMT
I think it would work but it would need a number of measures. Just off the top of my head 1) A solicitor would had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person committed the crime and this would be subject to numerous reviews. 2) The case would have to be independently audited, to ensure that nothing is missed and there are no irregularities. 3) The Supreme Court would have to recommend the death penalty and only by a unanimous decisions from a group of judges. 4) Only the Home Secretary would br able to sign off the request and only after the majority approval of the cabinet and potentially parliament. So even if we had it there would be a lot of hoops to jump through to actually secure it. As much as I can understand the case for it I am against capital punishment. I have seen too many miscarriages of justice in my life time. It is bad enough people are released after 20 years imprisonment for crimes they did not commit. How do you even begin to rectify the situation if you have executed them. Sure people were convinced of their guilt when they were convicted. And it is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt. I love how people are described as innocent when found not guilty. This is not the case, just there was not enough evidence to prove their guilt. Does not mean they did not commit the crime. Understandable but in the Lucy Letby case she was clearly guilty. Bringing back the death penalty is almost impossible due to the complications. Even in the US when people get sentenced to death, they are placed on death row for around 10-15 years. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 22, 2023 10:38:06 GMT
But that is why in my mind you would have all of these measures in place so at no point after the fact could someone say “oh we missed this”. Besides the way our country works these days they’d never actually get to that point. Look how long it’s taken to get Crossrail going, HS2 and the, still being debated, Heathrow T6/third runway. I would not be convinced unless they personally had freely and duressly free confessed to the crimes. If someone insists they're innocent, I don't think any level of proof will be enough. 99.9999% is not good enough. This, even more so when there have been cases where evidence that could support a defence case has been suppressed. If it can't be 100% sure there is no corruption in the legal process, you can not have capital punishment. How would you ever get to a state where the process is infallible? And what do you do when it has been found to be? How would you tell the relatives, I am sorry? "We killed your father for something we have since established he did not do, but please please accept our apologies for it." If they got it right 99 times out of 100 I’d call those pretty good odds. But that is exactly why I am suggesting multiple layers of checks and investigations to ensure that at every stage it would be correct. I would even add independent case auditors who are thoroughly background checked to ensure there is no corruption and if there was it was weeded out quickly. Of course no system would be perfect and it wouldn’t be for a singular murder, for example. I would only support it in the case of people like Lucy Letby or Myra Hindley where the crimes are so heinous that they don’t deserve an opportunity to be rehabilitated or left to rot in a cell at his majesty’s pleasure. Extreme cases where there has been such an impact of victims that the families may never rest comfortably knowing the criminals are alive. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 22, 2023 10:39:56 GMT
As much as I can understand the case for it I am against capital punishment. I have seen too many miscarriages of justice in my life time. It is bad enough people are released after 20 years imprisonment for crimes they did not commit. How do you even begin to rectify the situation if you have executed them. Sure people were convinced of their guilt when they were convicted. And it is not beyond a shadow of a doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt. I love how people are described as innocent when found not guilty. This is not the case, just there was not enough evidence to prove their guilt. Does not mean they did not commit the crime. Understandable but in the Lucy Letby case she was clearly guilty. Bringing back the death penalty is almost impossible due to the complications. Even in the US when people get sentenced to death, they are placed on death row for around 10-15 years. This is what I love. She probably is guilty, but trial lasted 10 months, you probably read a few 5 minutes articles and you are 100% sure she is guilty only knowing a fraction of what was presented as evidence at the trial. What can you tell me about the evidence her defence council submitted? Something that lasted at least a month, and we both know very little. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Aug 22, 2023 10:48:18 GMT
Understandable but in the Lucy Letby case she was clearly guilty. Bringing back the death penalty is almost impossible due to the complications. Even in the US when people get sentenced to death, they are placed on death row for around 10-15 years. This is what I love. She probably is guilty, but trial lasted 10 months, you probably read a few 5 minutes articles and you are 100% sure she is guilty only knowing a fraction of what was presented as evidence at the trial. What can you tell me about the evidence her defence council submitted? Something that lasted at least a month, and we both know very little. I think that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that she is guilty. Multiple parents of the deceased children spoke about their horrors regarding her, she even wrote in her notes that she was evil and committed those crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 22, 2023 10:52:47 GMT
I would not be convinced unless they personally had freely and duressly free confessed to the crimes. If someone insists they're innocent, I don't think any level of proof will be enough. 99.9999% is not good enough. This, even more so when there have been cases where evidence that could support a defence case has been suppressed. If it can't be 100% sure there is no corruption in the legal process, you can not have capital punishment. How would you ever get to a state where the process is infallible? And what do you do when it has been found to be? How would you tell the relatives, I am sorry? "We killed your father for something we have since established he did not do, but please please accept our apologies for it." If they got it right 99 times out of 100 I’d call those pretty good odds. But that is exactly why I am suggesting multiple layers of checks and investigations to ensure that at every stage it would be correct. I would even add independent case auditors who are thoroughly background checked to ensure there is no corruption and if there was it was weeded out quickly. Of course no system would be perfect and it wouldn’t be for a singular murder, for example. I would only support it in the case of people like Lucy Letby or Myra Hindley where the crimes are so heinous that they don’t deserve an opportunity to be rehabilitated or left to rot in a cell at his majesty’s pleasure. Extreme cases where there has been such an impact of victims that the families may never rest comfortably knowing the criminals are alive. So I everyone 1 in 100 paracetamol could kill you, you would continue happily taking them as they were good odds? When you talking about life and death those are shocking odds. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 22, 2023 10:55:31 GMT
I get the thinking behind it as I used to be all for capital punishment but the more I researched into how it works, the less of a fan I became. To me, it means we've hardly evolved away from our past if we were to resort back to an eye for an eye method. I think it would work but it would need a number of measures. Just off the top of my head 1) A solicitor would had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person committed the crime and this would be subject to numerous reviews. 2) The case would have to be independently audited, to ensure that nothing is missed and there are no irregularities. 3) The Supreme Court would have to recommend the death penalty and only by a unanimous decisions from a group of judges. 4) Only the Home Secretary would br able to sign off the request and only after the majority approval of the cabinet and potentially parliament. So even if we had it there would be a lot of hoops to jump through to actually secure it. Which then shows, in my mind at least, that there is zero point in having it. Even then, with all that in place and it works, I still would be uncomfortable with it as to me, killing them gives the criminal an easy way out. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 22, 2023 10:57:51 GMT
If they got it right 99 times out of 100 I’d call those pretty good odds. But that is exactly why I am suggesting multiple layers of checks and investigations to ensure that at every stage it would be correct. I would even add independent case auditors who are thoroughly background checked to ensure there is no corruption and if there was it was weeded out quickly. Of course no system would be perfect and it wouldn’t be for a singular murder, for example. I would only support it in the case of people like Lucy Letby or Myra Hindley where the crimes are so heinous that they don’t deserve an opportunity to be rehabilitated or left to rot in a cell at his majesty’s pleasure. Extreme cases where there has been such an impact of victims that the families may never rest comfortably knowing the criminals are alive. So I everyone 1 in 100 paracetamol could kill you, you would continue happily taking them as they were good odds? When you talking about life and death those are shocking odds. Yes, I would. The same reason why people opt for surgeries with low mortality rates, the risk outweighs the benefit. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 22, 2023 11:00:37 GMT
I think it would work but it would need a number of measures. Just off the top of my head 1) A solicitor would had to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person committed the crime and this would be subject to numerous reviews. 2) The case would have to be independently audited, to ensure that nothing is missed and there are no irregularities. 3) The Supreme Court would have to recommend the death penalty and only by a unanimous decisions from a group of judges. 4) Only the Home Secretary would br able to sign off the request and only after the majority approval of the cabinet and potentially parliament. So even if we had it there would be a lot of hoops to jump through to actually secure it. Which then shows, in my mind at least, that there is zero point in having it. Even then, with all that in place and it works, I still would be uncomfortable with it as to me, killing them gives the criminal an easy way out. But at least in the most extreme cases it becomes a viable, if seldom used option. Similar to how countries like Brazil and Israel have it but never use it. |
|
