Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 4,724
- Location
- Guernsey
Less money spent.
Gunman on the loose in Cumbria!
- Thread starter TheBigCheese
- Start date
Justice achieved?
But there's not, you can see that in america, so few people on death row actually get executed, so they're essentially serving life sentences, but with the added costs of constant appeals.
Largely depends on your definition of Justice, an eye for an eye is commonly viewed as revenge, not justice.
The wishes and feelings of those affected directly by a crime like this (or any crime) should be completely irrelevant in the passing of a sentence. There is no benefit to the death sentence other than satisfying the blood lust for those who feel they've been wronged, either directly or in empathy for the victim.
More so than being locked up for life?
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 4,724
- Location
- Guernsey
That's the American system, not the system I'm planning to implement, Muhahaha!
Irrelevant, you can't have such a system without grounds for appeal, the scope for error is too wide, you can't have a limit on appeals for the same reason. Unless you propose going back to the dark ages the death sentence can never be beneficially reintroduced.
You can't just say "but, my system would work" without actually correcting the flaws of past of existing systems. The death penalty serves no reasonable purpose.
Depends, but in general yes I do believe that there are some crimes so heinous that the death penalty would be the most appropriate punishment. Fitting that in to an appropriate legal context however would be a difficult challenge.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia_pacific/10192506.stm
China executed a man on Sunday who killed a load of school kids in April. Are the Chinese living in the dark ages?
How is it ever a punishment? It only is if you believe in an afterlife, and that they will then be judged for their crimes there.
Otherwise they're being set free. People will suffer in prison if they are alive, a dead man cannot suffer.
I genuinely can't see it from either side other than the gut instinct of "they killed someone, lets kill them"
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jan 2006
- Posts
- 4,724
- Location
- Guernsey
The scope for error is irrelevant, I'm talking about cases that are clear cut where murder has been carried out with intent. I'm not talking about complex cases where there is any grounds for a mistake to be made. What if someone goes into court and pleads guilty to murder/rape?
Yes, 5 that we know so far... therefore it's highly likely to be higher. You mention his mental capacity, but surely you realise if he pleads insanity he will be detained indefinitely?
It's easy to jump on the "british justice is a joke" daily mail type bandwagon, unfortunately the law and facts tend to get in the way of such arguments.
I'm not sure of your point, I said it wasn't possible for us, british society, to reintroduce the death penalty, without either overcoming the flaws of other systems and our past one, or returning to the dark ages. That someone has been "justly" executed in China doesn't say that they have a faultless capitol punishment system.
You could equally have posted any execution from any country, it doesn't justify it as being the right course of action...
Im talking pigeons/crows that are hammering our crops or foxes killing livestock, deer management etc
Not sure why everyone jumps on this 'ban the guns' everytime we have some crazed killer on the loose. You think by banning legally owned guns that gun crime will drop?
Where did I say anything about banning guns?
What if they're insane? You'd sentence someone to death on the basis of their word alone?
You can't discuss any element of the british legal system and say scope for error is irrelevant, everything would need to be done with exemplary precision to prevent an error being made in the prosecution. While the basis of most appeals is obviously going to be "I didn't do it", the bit that actually holds them up is niggling over the finest of details.
You forgot the </dailymail>
I think he meant two different points, in response to you that it was better to shoot birds with a shotgun than an air rifle.Where did I say anything about banning guns?