Jacob Crouch

It would not be more expensive unless the judicial system allowed it to be. These convicted killers tend to appeal to the nth degree anyway, about length of sentence if it's not the conviction itself. The justification of the death penalty would be just one more submission to an appeal court or two.

And it costs a fortune to keep someone locked up for maybe up to 50 years or more.

There is however no point in me arguing further in favour of something I do not myself advocate.

 

I think you might be on a hiding to nothing with this one

 

Jury members totally opposed to the Death Penalty will not find a defendant guilty.

 

Been done a thousand times on here and last time I got into a lengthy discussion with you about it. People like Huntley, Roy whiting etc should be put to sleep jail is too good for them. Anyone who is convicted of murder shouldn't ever be released, taking into account the crime and the duty to the victims family etc murder should be a life long mandatory sentence.

 

But ignoring all the other issues, where do you draw the line between murderers who get a life sentence and those who get death?

And how do you account for the fact that people might get exonerated by evidence at a later time?

 

Well obviously people like Roy whiting and Huntley and the rigby killers what reason do you belive they should still be here?

 

I think that a state should never take the lives of its citizens. But even putting that aside, you haven't answered the question - where do you draw the line in terms of who gets the death penalty and who doesn't?

 

If the Death Penalty had been on the Books when the above were in Court and a minimum of three jurors who opposed the Death Penalty were unable to find them guilty because of their beliefs then the above would have left the Court as free men.

...as would Crouch and his partner given the same scenario.

(33% of UK population opposed to the Death Penalty for child killers.)

 

I think in extreme cases like terrorists e.g rigby killers or child killers Huntley, Roy whiting etc then they should be executed. You have your opinion I have mine. I think its a joke how people can get convicted of murder but then be released its a joke to the crime the victim and the victims family. Infact I think there needs to be a shake up of the system in England for sentences on all crimes.

 

I'll say it again -
if a jury has a number of jurors opposed to the Death Penalty then they will not convict defendants of the crime if the penalty is Death.
Defendant is then set free.

 

Didn't know I had replied to you. I've done it a thousand times I think the whole sentencing in the u.k needs reform soft as ****.

 

If someone has genuinely reformed then what's the benefit in keeping them if prison? Norway's prison system is focused on rehabilitation and restorative justice - they don't have a life sentence and it's probably what you'd call a "soft" system yet their rates for crime and recidivism are amongst the lowest in the world.

 

How do you know a violent muderer has or can be reformed? For the victims family? If you had a person close to you murdered you would most likely think different. Also the jail system in England has a terrible rate of reform.

Look at London people getting robbed for high end watches at knife crime is a regular thing. Dubai people are walking round with watches and bags worth 100k no ones getting robbed as you would get your fingers chopped off. And half the young ens aren't pissed up and coked up on a weekend like in England, it's called deterrent.

 

Given that you're saying it again.......

The simple answer to the problem you seek to create, is to have potential jurors fully vetted before they end up on the jury.

You have them confirm/swear/affirm in writing upon pain of committing an offence themselves that e.g. they will judge a case honestly and impartially irrespective of the crime involved and the potential sentence

One would imagine that potentially severe sanctions would put them off doing the job of judging their peers in any event, if their only reason for being there would be to refuse to carry out what they had promised to do, and to pervert the course of justice.

 

You overhaul the system so it's more focused on reforming criminals and rehabilitating them to be productive members of society. If you aren't convinced someone is reformed then don't let them out.

 

Jury nullification is established as valid, so that wouldn't work. And even if you did make people do that, how do you prove that someone is returning a verdict of not guilty based on objection to the sentence rather than an honest belief that the defendant is innocent?

 

"Genuinely reformed". This brings me back to the 29 deaths I quoted to you earlier.

You will never know whether any individual has "genuinely reformed". The benefit in doubting is that in my argument, 29 people would still be alive.

 

But our system isn't based on reforming prisoners. It's based on punishing them for an arbitrary period of time, at which point they are released as individuals who have close to zero prospect of successfully reintegrating into society. If we had a system based on reform and only letting people out when we're convinced they are reformed that figure of 29 would be significantly lower. But we won't do that because it's seen as "soft".

 

You seem to be approving Taffy's premise that there are 3 non-hanging jurors on hand, sat there ready for every murder trial.

I don't get your other point(s). I'm just wanting a jury to do their job. As required. To judge whether guilty or not to the trial before them. Like every other case.

 

No doubt you, or others like you, would have said the same about the Birmingham Six. And the Guildford Four etc. etc. etc.