Woolwich

[EFC Si]

You have the death penalty for cases that are 100%

if it 99.9% then no death penalty.

those 2 yesterday 100% did it.
Dale Cregan 100% killed a father and son and 2 police woman.

if there is any doubt what so ever. no death penalty.

Cases are always 100%. A jury doesn't come to a verdict that they're not 100% sure on; even if it turns out to be wrong.

 

[Brennan]

And there's cells full of murdering child sex offenders wanking about their crimes in a cell because you've got yours. Then there's mothers and fathers having to live with that thought every single day.

Maybe that's true. I'd rather that than have the murder of an innocent person on my conscience. Or is some collateral damage alright in your books as long as we kill the ones who 'defo did it' ?

 

[Deloodid]

Cases are always 100%. A jury doesn't come to a verdict that they're not 100% sure on; even if it turns out to be wrong.

you wont see them 2 yesterday appealing, nor Dale Cregan

 

[Brennan]

I honestly don't think putting someone to death would give any more solace for the families of the victims. This horrific crime can't be reversed no matter what becomes of the culprits.

Of course I've never experienced anything like this, so I can't really comment.

There's plenty of sites with victims families saying just that, that the death penalty doesn't bring comfort or solace.

http://www.mvfr.org/

 

[Bluenose1995]

You have the death penalty for cases that are 100%

if it 99.9% then no death penalty.

those 2 yesterday 100% did it.
Dale Cregan 100% killed a father and son and 2 police woman.

if there is any doubt what so ever. no death penalty.

exactly with modern day forensics, IT forensics and CCTV in these high profile cases if someone did it they did it, most if not all cases of mistaken cases where prior to all of these developments which makes the argument mute imo, systems can be put in place to make clear cut cases like these death penalty worthy but its not done to appease those PC brigade clowns

 

[HSD]

I'd personally only be okay with having the death penalty if it was for people like serial killers. People who have done things like that, or rape, etc. a number of times because then it's less likely that someone innocent could be sentenced. Or if there's 100% evidence of them doing something horrific, like the guy in Cleveland.

 

[EFC Si]

I'd personally only be okay with having the death penalty if it was for people like serial killers. People who have done things like that, or rape, etc. a number of times because then it's less likely that someone innocent could be sentenced. Or if there's 100% evidence of them doing something horrific, like the guy in Cleveland.

A verdict is never given without the Jury being 100%. You can't just pick and choose in which cases 'They were definitely guilty". If there's any doubt over a case then it wouldn't reach a verdict/sentence.

 

[Bluenose1995]

A verdict is never given without the Jury being 100%. You can't just pick and choose in which cases 'They were definitely guilty". If there's any doubt over a case then it wouldn't reach a verdict/sentence.

rubbish so your telling me this isn't a clear cut case? or the Yorkshire Ripper murders? Tia sharp murder?

their ARE clear cut cases in which safeguards would or should be put in place in for ones that are not clear cut

 

[roydo]

exactly with modern day forensics, IT forensics and CCTV in these high profile cases if someone did it they did it, most if not all cases of mistaken cases where prior to all of these developments which makes the argument mute imo, systems can be put in place to make clear cut cases like these death penalty worthy but its not done to appease those PC brigade clowns

No it isnt. You either have a death penalty, or you dont. You cannot have it where it is obvious someone has done it, like yesterday, but not if there some doubt! And people are not just aquitted or found gulity on evidence, but also on legal proceedure not being correct.

 

[EFC Si]

rubbish so your telling me this isn't a clear cut case? or the Yorkshire Ripper murders? Tia sharp murder?

their ARE clear cut cases in which safeguards would or should be put in place in for ones that are not clear cut

That's not the point I'm making. People here are saying if there's a case where the accused are 'definitely' guilty than it's okay. What I'm saying is that every single case that goes through the courts isn't concluded until the Jury are 100% sure of the right verdict.

Which means that some cases can't be 'definitely guilty' and others can't.

 

[HSD]

A verdict is never given without the Jury being 100%. You can't just pick and choose in which cases 'They were definitely guilty". If there's any doubt over a case then it wouldn't reach a verdict/sentence.

There's been plenty of cases in both the UK, Europe and USA where people have been found innocent after spending time in prison, or having the death penalty.

Also, if there was a death penalty for killing someone, what about the times when someone has either accidentally killed someone, or killed in self defense (they usually still get sentenced)?

Certain things deserve the death penalty without any questions asked, but every single case is different, so I think they'd have to have so many rules on who should be sentenced to death.

 

[Brennan]

There's been plenty of cases in both the UK, Europe and USA where people have been found innocent after spending time in prison, or having the death penalty.

Also, if there was a death penalty for killing someone, what about the times when someone has either accidentally killed someone, or killed in self defense (they usually still get sentenced)?

Certain things deserve the death penalty without any questions asked, but every single case is different, so I think they'd have to have so many rules on who should be sentenced to death.

I think that's what he's saying, that the jury is always told they must be certain of somebody's guilt before convicting, so that the idea we could have a limit on the death penalty where you were '100% certain' doesn't make sense. As that's already how the law works.

 

[noharmdone]

Imagine if the lad was special air service ? Those two beauts came at him and he took them both out ? And it wasn't seen on smart phones ?

 

[roydo]

I think that's what he's saying, that the jury is always told they must be certain of somebody's guilt before convicting, so that the idea we could have a limit on the death penalty where you were '100% certain' doesn't make sense. As that's already how the law works.

Not quite mate. "Beyond reasonable doubt" trumps 100% certain. Big difference in most cases.

 

[roydo]

Imagine if the lad was special air service ? Those two beauts came at him and he took them both out ? And it wasn't seen on smart phones ?

Inferring he would be on a charge? Well, he would have been, rightly so, then tried, and almost certainly found not guilty.