Clayton Williams... your parents must be so proud

The discussion on capital punishment is pointless. You will never get a group of twelve people who all believe in capital punishment. Those who don't believe in capital punishment will not find anyone guilty.

 

A lot more money than it takes to give them a lethal injection. " Eye for an eye" rule for killers and anyone not born here who commits a crime should be sent back to their homeland for their punishment and be given a lifetime ban from entering the UK. Prisons would soon be less crowded then.

 

100% agree with you. I don't want to be part of a society that is no better than the criminals it punishes. Don't get me wrong, I support full-life sentences and think prison should be much tougher than it is, but think that killing people is wrong, irrespective of the crime.

 

Nah, I'm with you. I think a compelling case can be made for both sides but, ultimately, I'm against it.

 

Utter bullsh1t. It costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life.

 

I'm with you - but in this instance at least, life imprisonment if he's found guilty of murder should be just that.

 

Me too.

This guy's a scum bag, but it doesn't make me change my opinion.

 

Its strange isn't it

that the very same people in this thread saying 'an eye for an eye', 'kill the scum' ... 'feed them to the rats' etc.

are the very same people who in another thread will be saying 'ISIS scumbags are pure evil' ... 'they're barbaric and need wiping of the face of the earth'

nowt so strange as folk.

 

And me. I can't see any justification for the state taking the lives of its citizens, and the only argument put forward in its favour seems to be of a reactionary "hang the bstard" nature.

 

I'm sure I read somewhere that the biggest cause of death on 'Death Row' in American prisons is natural causes. Mainly old age.

 

I think you'll also find that the death sentence did not and will not deter such evil people.

I think you'll also find that innocent people have been executed.......... so how would you feel if you were sent to the chair/gallows KNOWING you were innocent?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

 

Funny how "Islam is barbaric" re: executions of criminals, yet the same folk want the same method of execution over here. Animals eh?

 

lol

 

Simple answer to this is just to ensure that in cases where the death penalty could apply, potential jurors are asked when being sworn in (or whatever the hell it is they do now) whether they have any conscientious/moral objections to the potential penalties should the defendant be found guilty, so those who do can be released from service accordingly and replaced. Frankly if you're prepared to come to a judgement on guilt (or otherwise) based on some conscience driven personal agenda, rather than based on the available evidence, you're not fit to be part of the process in the first place.

 

11 posters on this thread against Capital Punishment.
You can't ask people if they're in favour or not of CP before swearing them in anymore than you could ask them if they're approve of prison for certain offences before they're sworn in.
The reality is those opposed to CP would either say the person is 'not guilty' or that they don't know if he/she's guilty or not.

 

The state of California, when selecting potential jurors, would ask if the person knew anything about the case - e.g. media coverage etc, although this was often asked in a rather oblique manner so as not to influence the potential juror - and then they would ask if they had any objection- should the person be found guilty - to recommending the death penalty.

Now obviously this was when they basically had two trials, one to establish guilt and one to establish the level of punishment after the trial.

I have simplified the above quite a lot and there are and were a lot more nuances to it but it does relate to the idea that you can't ask if they approve of certain offences - because people used to be!

sorry for using an American example but seemed relevant.

 

Really hope you're not using this forum as a barometer of public opinion. Next you'll be telling me the demos in Manchester represent public opinion too.

If as you suggest some would deliberately ignore the evidence in criminal proceedings in an attempt to subvert the process outcomes, then we may have to consider majority verdicts becoming the norm. Would rather not but what can you do when you're faced with that kind of nonsense.

 

Putting people to death on the basis of balance of probabilities. Reyt idea.

 

Courts don't operate on the balance of probability, at least they shouldn't, they're supposed to operate on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. So if the majority of a jury feels the evidence presented to them proves beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime, and that crime carries with it the death sentence, then the decision to put them to death is made on the correct basis. A few (and it would only be a few in the circumstances) jurors not being able (or willing) to make a decision wouldn't change that.

 

But if 7 people say it's beyond reasonable doubt and 5 don't then you're killing someone on the balance of probabilities that the 7 are right and the 5 aren't.

I'm still yet to hear a good argument in favour of the death penalty generally, let alone executing people on a majority verdict.