Death penalty.

I think he was an accomplice to the state murdering them.

What does "100% proven" even mean? All guilty verdicts are, by definition, beyond reasonable doubt. If you want to introduce a new and separate burden of proof for the death penalty then you'd be opening a right can of worms legally speaking. What if a jury finds a murderer guilty but then stops short of the death penalty? That suggests the jury can't apparently have been that sure he was guilty after all.

It's completely unworkable. So the options are to not have the death penalty, or accept a few innocent deaths as acceptable collateral damage.

 

Juries had that dilemma. The verdict on Derek Bentley was guilty with a recommendation for mercy. The recommendation was ignored. The 1957 Homicide Act reduced the number of capital murder offences to six.
Murder committed in the course or furtherance of theft
Murder by shooting or explosion
Murder whilst resisting arrest or during an escape
Murder of a police or prison officer
Two murders committed on different occasions.

One result of this meant that a rapist could expect only a prison sentence if his victim died. If however he’d also stolen money from the victim, he could face the hangman.

 

Yeah, I get the argument, but my body would reject meat now (maybe that is brain-training as you say, as I used to and I feel very guilty about that) - the smallest piece of a Greggs sausage roll and i'd be chundering like a good un. Someone debated with me before and said humans have canine teeth, which is true. But look at the canine teeth of a lion or tiger; unlike them I think humans would struggle to chew through raw meat. As I said, I understand the argument, but for me it's against my nature to eat 'meat', physically and morally.

 

Good to hear, keep on swooning

 

I get that. nothings perfect. But advances have also helped those wrongly accused as well as nailing perpetrators down.
As for America I believe there is more emphasis than in the uk. on getting someone to fit the crime. To boost the figures.

 

Not all brexit voters support the death penalty, but all death penalty supporters are brexiteers. Or summat like that..

 

Correction. 'By nature', NOTHING is designed. Everything evolves. Unless you're a creationist, then EVERYTHING was designed (in a mind blowing 6 days) by the big beardy bloke in the sky. Likewise, the earth is flat, guns are cool & Brexit was a good idea..
Oh, & meat products have been freely available, since the dawn of time. Frozen & prepackaged for your convenience. All the animals had a happy, contented life frolicking in a sunny meadow & went gladly to the consumer, with zero impact on the environment..

 

What a ridiculous comment, do you really mean that, or is it a bit sarcy ?.
Ruth Ellis killed the man and was punished for doing so, simple as that!. Yes he was apparently a violent horrible scumbag, but she killed him and theres no comparison here with messrs Craig & Evans.

 

O/T -- a tad removed from the Death Penalty ---

Ryan Giggs trial suspended today as one of the jurors taken ill - should re-convene tomorrow.

 

You're correct, things do evolve. The human body has not evolved away from having a digestive system designed to eat meat though has it?

 

What about a touch of ‘torture’?
The guy they have arrested is refusing to talk, in his case think I’d be tempted to try something a level or two up from normal questioning, even if it’s putting him in a cell with somebody a touch on the hard side.

 

Your digestive system wasn't designed. It evolved.. Or are we talking about 'God' again?

 

I think the point is that now the previously violent behaviour of the victim towards her would influence the result of the trial and she'd likely get convicted of a maximum of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility - especially as he had previously caused her to have a miscarriage by punching her.

 

Torture, ffs? You seriously want torturing people, who haven’t even had a trial yet btw, to be a legal thing?

 

I meant more scaring him tbf.
( Ex )?dealer who brought the terror of a gunman to an innocent family and caused the death of a 9 year old girl and ruining good knows how many lives . That’s an indisputable fact so I don’t think a bit of extra pressure to find out who was responsible would have been out of the question.
Personally I’d have threatened to let her dad ask him a few questions.

 

Who would decide how much torture/question asking was appropriate? What if it goes too far? Is the father then looking at a murder charge?

I am regularly bemused by the seeming leniency of the justice system but capital punishment, legalised torture or approved vigilantism are not the answer.

 

I said threaten not do it.
Although I have absolute zero tolerance or sympathy with scum like these.

 

No thread on this subject should avoid an Elvis Costello link about one of the biggest travesties of justice in modern history.