Trump reinstates death penalty for federal crimes

[StriderX]

Not much that man has done that I agree with but am with him on this. Ethically you can argue you should never sanction killing someone however so long as it is beyond ANY doubt then imo it is a practical issue. Those people can never be release and so is just too expensive to keep them.... Not to mention do you really want people like that (lost causes) locked up with people who can possibly be redeemed......

That said however I do think there needs to be extra layer of protection after the normal jury process.,.... Without any of the lawyer games and where a professional panel review ALL evidence before a sentence of death is passed..... Combined with massive charges levied against any corruption used to force a guilty plea on possible death case.

IME (albeit limited) cases which are later quashed it is clear from the outset that there were massive questionmarks over the case at the time but a lackluster defence and over zealous prosecutor have won a weak case. I hate the way the whole system is geared towards winning rather than presenting the truth...... But nothing will change that hence my view that an extra layer without the BS is needed before passing death sentence.
Once done however it needs to be swift

Have you even read this thread? It's MORE expensive for death row to exist. MOST OF THE COST IS IN THE TRIAL. You're literally advocating stealing money from taxpayers when the alternative is cheaper and achieves the same goal.

It can never be "swift" as that is against the fabric of a just society, it cannot just be made "faster" because the public don't want to deal with a process that has already saved dozens from being murdered by the state. If it's so great, then how dont we just let the government use the intelligence agencies to shoot people, i mean you trust them right?

 

[TJM]

But if they 100% did it. They should have 3 days to say goodbye and then shot.

Would this require a new verdict of 'definitely guilty' for the death sentence? If you're found guilty but not definitely guilty, does that mean the jury actually doubts whether you committed the offence?

 

[Burnsy2023]

Would this require a new verdict of 'definitely guilty' for the death sentence? If you're found guilty but not definitely guilty, does that mean the jury actually doubts whether you committed the offence?

There's no such thing as 100% guilty. Its an oversimplification by people who either don't know or don't want to know how the criminal justice system works.

 

[Energize]

"Execution", or rather government sanctioned murder is just retribution to make the populace feel better, not justice.

 

[StriderX]

There's no such thing as 100% guilty. Its an oversimplification by people who either don't know or don't want to know how the criminal justice system works.

And yet morally it should be the limit at which killing people should be allowable, since it's not attainable we shouldn't entertain it.

 

[deuse]

Would this require a new verdict of 'definitely guilty' for the death sentence? If you're found guilty but not definitely guilty, does that mean the jury actually doubts whether you committed the offence?

Never heard of "definitely guilty"

 

[deuse]

There's no such thing as 100% guilty. Its an oversimplification by people who either don't know or don't want to know how the criminal justice system works.

What are you smoking?
Plenty of scum have been caught killing someone. That's 100% guilty

 

[bigmike20vt]

Have you even read this thread? It's MORE expensive for death row to exist. MOST OF THE COST IS IN THE TRIAL. You're literally advocating stealing money from taxpayers when the alternative is cheaper and achieves the same goal.

It can never be "swift" as that is against the fabric of a just society, it cannot just be made "faster" because the public don't want to deal with a process that has already saved dozens from being murdered by the state. If it's so great, then how dont we just let the government use the intelligence agencies to shoot people, i mean you trust them right?

The current system of being on death row for years and years is expensive. I do not believe it has to be this way however .
Found guilty by your peers then guilty. If the judge then feels it warrants a potential death penalty it is the passed onto a separate panel of experts who review the evidence independently. IF they feel the case was sound with not jiggery pokery on either side (like I said those cases which publicly got squashed it was obvious there were issues......
Then if they decide the evidence is strong enough for death then it happens and happens quickly if not then that Its off the table and sentence as now.

 

[bigmike20vt]

There's no such thing as 100% guilty. Its an oversimplification by people who either don't know or don't want to know how the criminal justice system works.

Horse hockey. Some cases are more cut and dried than others. Beyond reasonable doubt should not be death penalty. There are instances of being bang to rights however unless you go full tinfoil hat of corruption across the board (in which case IF a person if found for instance fabricating a video to make a person look guilty then they quite simply should face the same punishment they were stitching that person up for.

Eg Rose and Fred West or Ian Brady and Myra hindley are you suggesting there is any chance they were innocent? And I would say modern police is FAR better equipped now.

 

[enkoda]

"Execution", or rather government sanctioned murder is just retribution to make the populace feel better, not justice.

It also prevents violent murderers from committing further atrocities, either towards other prisoners & guards, or if they're released on parole or day release. It places the safety of all law abiding citizens above that of murderers who show no remorse or cannot be rehabilitated.

There's no such thing as 100% guilty. Its an oversimplification by people who either don't know or don't want to know how the criminal justice system works.

The killers of Lee Rigby aren't 100% guilty? Please enlighten us.

 

[bigmike20vt]

"Execution", or rather government sanctioned murder is just retribution to make the populace feel better, not justice.

(I don't know the answer to this I am just posing a question) how many people have committed serious crimes in prison who could have been put to death? Every one of those crimes need to be added onto the balance of justice. I don't "like" the idea of killing people but sometimes it is (imo) the more practical solution. That is not to say the current US system is ideal either tho. Edit. Ninja'd

 

[FoxEye]

There's no such thing as 100% guilty. Its an oversimplification by people who either don't know or don't want to know how the criminal justice system works.

Hmm the other day you were saying you could tell that some rapists were definitely guilty because the victim couldn't fake their reaction to being raped.

You don't half change your mind.

 

[dowie]

There's no such thing as 100% guilty. Its an oversimplification by people who either don't know or don't want to know how the criminal justice system works.

Yes but he's questioning whether, if we're going to have the death penalty, there should be some higher standard of guilt. Beyond the beyond reasonable doubt requirement as clearly that results in unsafe or completely incorrect convictions where people are later released on appeal.

For example it isn't just beyond reasonable doubt that the two people who killed Lee Rigby are guilty... there is no doubt at all about it, they hung around at the scene, they did it in front of multiple witnesses and they were filmed on national TV covered in his blood. You'd be completely safe, in the event that you wanted to apply the death penalty, in knowing you had the right people.

That certainly isn't the case in all murder trials where people have been found guilty, ergo there could be a higher standard of guilt.

 

[StriderX]

And that is no way to run a judiciary system, plus although very unlikely, some of these people could give up information about other criminals/terrorists, that is more likely with time than violence as we well know from CIA reports on their useless **** at gitmo.

Even if you discount everything, you ultimately come to the moral question, and it is always wrong, tainting the judiciary with the option is not an intelligent thing to do, we literally have a government wanting to ID you for Porn access for ***** sakes, we live in a world of deepfakes now, you CANNOT seriously suggest this is a good idea.

 

[enkoda]

And that is no way to run a judiciary system, plus although very unlikely, some of these people could give up information about other criminals/terrorists, that is more likely with time than violence as we well know from CIA reports on their useless **** at gitmo.

Even if you discount everything, you ultimately come to the moral question, and it is always wrong, tainting the judiciary with the option is not an intelligent thing to do, we literally have a government wanting to ID you for Porn access for ***** sakes, we live in a world of deepfakes now, you CANNOT seriously suggest this is a good idea.

Lucky we have victims like Quyen Ngoc Nguyen (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...e-for-torture-and-murder-of-quyen-ngoc-nguyen) who are paying the price for the right of previously convicted murderers to enjoy the right to not be executed - her death is acceptable but theirs isn't.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Hmm the other day you were saying you could tell that some rapists were definitely guilty because the victim couldn't fake their reaction to being raped.

You don't half change your mind.

I said I believed they were guilty. I can accept that I could be wrong as it's just a personal opinion.

What are you smoking?
Plenty of scum have been caught killing someone. That's 100% guilty

Horse hockey. Some cases are more cut and dried than others. Beyond reasonable doubt should not be death penalty. There are instances of being bang to rights however unless you go full tinfoil hat of corruption across the board (in which case IF a person if found for instance fabricating a video to make a person look guilty then they quite simply should face the same punishment they were stitching that person up for.

Eg Rose and Fred West or Ian Brady and Myra hindley are you suggesting there is any chance they were innocent? And I would say modern police is FAR better equipped now.

It also prevents violent murderers from committing further atrocities, either towards other prisoners & guards, or if they're released on parole or day release. It places the safety of all law abiding citizens above that of murderers who show no remorse or cannot be rehabilitated.


The killers of Lee Rigby aren't 100% guilty? Please enlighten us.

Yes but he's questioning whether, if we're going to have the death penalty, there should be some higher standard of guilt. Beyond the beyond reasonable doubt requirement as clearly that results in unsafe or completely incorrect convictions where people are later released on appeal.

For example it isn't just beyond reasonable doubt that the two people who killed Lee Rigby are guilty... there is no doubt at all about it, they hung around at the scene, they did it in front of multiple witnesses and they were filmed on national TV covered in his blood. You'd be completely safe, in the event that you wanted to apply the death penalty, in knowing you had the right people.

That certainly isn't the case in all murder trials where people have been found guilty, ergo there could be a higher standard of guilt.

So the point that undermines most of the above points is fairly simple: it may be easy to prove that they killed someone, it's harder to prove murder. Would people advocating capital punishment be happy to use the death penalty on offences other than murder? Manslaughter perhaps? What about GBH with intent? Whilst some people may not be innocent of any crime, they may in law be innocent of murder.

Let's be clear what the definition of murder is:

Where a person of sound mind and discretion unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the Queen's peace, with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

And this is where the nice black and white turns to grey.

Lets take a possible scenario for say the convicted murders of Lee Rigby. If medical science proved that these two individuals were not of sound mind say through a previously undiscovered virus or perhaps they had a genetic abnormality that made them violent, then the conviction for murder may very well be unsafe. I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just saying that although we have plenty of evidence that they killed, nobody can be 100% certain that their conviction will be safe forever. If they were killed by the state, then that's it, there's not option to potentially commute the sentence to life imprisonment.

If you're happy to kill them anyway, then were do we stop? Death penalty for manslaughter as well? What about someone who got into a fight and killed someone with one well placed punch?

Any 'higher' standard of proof above reasonable is simply a fallacy and doesn't stop miscarriages of justice.

If Policing has taught me anything in life it's that there is much more grey than anyone here would be willing to admit.

 

[dowie]

Lets take a possible scenario for say the convicted murders of Lee Rigby. If medical science proved that these two individuals were not of sound mind say through a previously undiscovered virus or perhaps they had a genetic abnormality that made them violent, then the conviction for murder may very well be unsafe. I'm not saying this is the case, I'm just saying that although we have plenty of evidence that they killed, nobody can be 100% certain that their conviction will be safe forever. If they were killed by the state, then that's it, there's not option to potentially commute the sentence to life imprisonment.

The seems rather convoluted and getting into the realms of fantasy re: this magical as yet undiscovered virus or genetic abnormalities*. The point is that plenty of convictions do get overturned and I don't think the death penalty would be very safe at all. (I'm not really in favour of it in general regardless). But IF it were to be introduced I think we'd need a higher standard of guilt in order to make use of it. I don't think there is really any doubt re: the killers of Lee Rigby.

*this can get a bit controversial - for example even stating some gene that is common among say sub saharan Africans is associated with violent behaviour can cause a massive **** storm. I'm not sure that that sort of thing ought to be an excuse to make a sentence more lenient regardless.

 

[Burnsy2023]

The seems rather convoluted and getting into the realms of fantasy re: this magical as yet undiscovered virus or genetic abnormalities*.

Fantasy? I think it's really clear that our understanding of mental illness and especially how genetics plays a part is pretty basic at the moment. Medical science could fundamentally change our understanding in say 10-20 years.

This is especially the case if we have gene therapies that could correct genes that may cause a particular mental illness.

 

[dowie]

Fantasy? I think it's really clear that our understanding of mental illness and especially how genetics plays a part is pretty basic at the moment. Medical science could fundamentally change our understanding in say 10-20 years.

This is especially the case if we have gene therapies that could correct genes that may cause mental illness.

Yes some special undiscovered virus that made them murder is getting into the realms of fantasy.

Medical science needing to discover more re: mental health != this fantasy scenario is plausible.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Yes some special undiscovered virus that made them murder is getting into the realms of fantasy.

Medical science needing to discover more re: mental health != this fantasy scenario is plausible.

Well, perhaps you can't see it, but that's not surprising. I'm sure many with clinical MH qualifications would have a very different view.