Jacob Crouch

I'm not saying that there would always be a sufficient number to frustrate a guilty verdict, just that any idea of sanctions for jurors is clearly absurd and unworkable.

 

I'm more interested in protecting those of us who haven't broken the law to the extent that we're talking about, from those that have. Not by killing the perpetrators. But by taking no chances with them. At all.

 

Well if you want to take no chances at all then you're going to need life sentences for every single crime. How's that going to work?

 

I agree it would be difficult to prove that a juror had refused to convict a stonewall killer because of their opposition to the death penalty.

It is absurd to think however that there would be numerous potential conscientious objector jurors lining up to thwart the court process. Get jurors to sign up to summat that made them aware of their responsibilities and the consequences of wasting everyone's time money upon pain of potential prosecution and more importantly impress the need to have the truth come out for the benefit of the victim's dear ones.

After all that if you're still prepared to sit on a jury and not decide honestly on the facts then you deserve all you get. For putting yourself in the wrong place when there was no need.

In fact hang 'em, immediately after a first appearance in the Magistrates Court. No legal aid allowed.

(getting carried away a bit now).

 

Every single crime?

I'm talking about killers - those that have "broken the law to the extent that we're talking about".

Not those driving 35 in a 30 zone.

 

Perhaps something like this:

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020
25.6.—(8) Each of the 12 or more jurors the court selects—

(a) must take an oath or affirm; and
(b) becomes a full jury member until discharged.
(9) The oath or affirmation must be in these terms, or in any corresponding terms that the juror declares to be binding on him or her—

“I swear by Almighty God [or I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm] that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.”


But the simple fact is, unlike magistrates, or judges sitting alone, juries do not give reasons for their verdicts. So you will never know!

 

How can you ever be sure a murderer is reformed in a system where reform is rare? What message does that send to the victims loved ones? Living in a society where people know they can kill and then be releasedwhat message does that send? . The danger out weights the benefits for me I'm more concerned in protecting the public than looking after the criminal.

 

That's the point I'm making - reform is rare in the current system but we could do a lot, lot better and that should be the aim. I'd argue that reforming criminals is in the public interest

How can you ever be 100% sure that someone you put to death is guilty?

 

America has the death penalty.
It works a treat there doesn't it?

 

Oh my word, what unholy can of worms is this.? The annual death penalty debate? & I’m still in the well hung camp..

 

Some states do. Idaho still does, but they rarely implement it. Not even for this cuckoo..
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...dren-life-sentence-prison-lori-vallow-daybell

 

I'm talking about murderers, not shoplifters coming out and re offending. Your right though they could do alot more to stop lesser crimes re offending but i suppose its down to cost and treatment of drug and achol use.
I think for a murderer it should be a mandatory whole life sentence. I know you don't agree so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

You know our judicial system ( sentencing guidelines) are knackered when a person can get more time for say shop lifting than noncing, add onto that a prisoner can refuse to attend court for sentencing, I used to go into Winchester prison everyday and practically everyone leaving the officers always said " Good luck and we'll see you soon" they knew who would be back and more often than not they were on the nail.

 

tbf this thread wasn’t about the death penalty ‘in general’, it was about what this undisputed case regarding what this absolute disgrace of a human being deserved for what he did to a young child

 

Funnily enough, I've just had a look at the Sentencing Guidelines and I can't seem to find a reference to 'noncing'!

 

If you had a choice between being killed instantly or serving the rest of your life behind bars amongst a load of scumbags with no realistic chance of ever being released, what would you choose?

 

For child killers like this scum of the earth a definite yes from me.

 

The Birmingham Six and Guildford Four would all have been executed if the sentence was available at the time. All were later exonerated by further evidence after serving 20+ years in prison.

That would be 10 innocent people that were fitted up by the police and murdered by the state.

In America, the murder rate is significantly higher than in the UK. The number of people wrongly sentenced to death row remains about 5-10%. Some of these are only exonerated after death. When its a bit too late.

 

I'm not massively in favour of the death sentence, but I don't think murderers should ever be released. I'd be in favour of the death sentence in extreme cases like the 3 I mentioned in all 3 cases there is 100% scientific evidence they did those crimes.

 

I'm afraid we lower our standards to those of the offender if we go back down that route. Not for me.