I'd agree about people getting off on technicalities, but giving the death penalty to those that intentionally alter or hide evidence doesn't help those that have already been put to death.
again the point is that it would be a deterrent to the miscarriage in the first place as it stands its too easy to 'fudge' the evidence and there is no come uppence as such As with all deaths, it doesnt help the dead but it creates closure for those affected The parents, partners, families of those who were killed I think when debating this issue everyone looks at it 1 sided. No one looks at it from the point of view of those close to the ones killed, innocently remember they didnt choose to be killed, but the perpetrator chose to kill
The death penalty isn't a deterrent. Your suggestion that the families of those that have died are traumatised is accurate, but it misses out on the trauma that would be inflicted on the families of somebody that was falsely executed.
i disagree, the death penalty is a deterrent if the process and procdures are done properly I agree with trauma for those that have someone falsely executed but there is the assumption that this would be something that happens a lot if at all what about the families of the victims of serial killers, who are in jail and make headlines now and again?
The death penalty has not proved to be a deterrent in countries and states that have it, in my understanding. Aren't the states in America that have it actually worse off with regards to violent crime and murder, for example? People are wrongly convicted. It happens. The answer to serial killers making headlines and upsetting families is to stop them from making headlines, not to kill them and then have the possibility of subsequent court cases trying to prove their innocence. That would cause more headlines.
again you miss the point imho america is probably the worst place to give as an example, the laws there are complicated to say the least which is a problem yes people are wrongly convicted, but we are not talking about the death penalty for every tom dick and harry the point about the serial killers is that they are 'proven' to be guilty. hence i only mentioned the likes of sutcliffe and huntley etc like i say, it depends on an individual approach to the topic. Mine is that if a person is proven to be guilty of murder(s) then rather than languishing in prison for 40 years, better to be dead for all concerned
So you'd only bring back the death penalty for serial killers? Would you also include spree killers and how many people would you have to kill to qualify?
DNA is not a cure all. Human beings get involved in the taking and transporting of it so however minuscule there is a possibility of human error. DNA may put you at the scene of a crime, but does not necessarily deal with say the question of intent. Although if there were a referendum, they may be a majority in favour of hanging,it would not be as huge as it once would be. You would find juries reluctant to convict someone if they knew they would die. There may have no difficulty in convicting an Ian Huntley, but an 18 year old from a bad background, who has got involved with the wrong crowd, maybe not.
DNA is not a cure all. Human beings get involved in the taking and transporting of it so however minuscule there is a possibility of human error. DNA may put you at the scene of a crime, but does not necessarily deal with say the question of intent. Although if there were a referendum, they may be a majority in favour of hanging,it would not be as huge as it once would be. You would find juries reluctant to convict someone if they knew they would die. There may have no difficulty in convicting an Ian Huntley, but an 18 year old from a bad background, who has got involved with the wrong crowd, maybe not.
you can not compare the two judicial systems, they are completely different. in america their system has a big emphasis on punishment, here the emphasis is rehabilitation.
No i would bring it in for all murderers, where they a re proven without a shadow of a doubt to be guilty i think a answers b too
why not use a different example, say japan where the death penalty was in force until 2009 generally and certain crimes today It seemed to be a deterrent The US has appeal laws, eg Manson has been appealing since 1969 These appeals can keep a person off death row for their lifetime In japan no appeals, family of perp didnt even know the date and time apparently perp had to take last step unaided and in essence kill themselves what are the crime rates in japan for murder? fairly low i hear
All convicted murderers are assumed to be guilty without a shadow of a doubt. If there's any reasonable doubt, then you're supposed to acquit them.
Manson's not on death row. He's appealing for his release, which isn't going to happen and he knows it. When California did away with the death penalty, all prisoners that were up for it were allowed to ask for parole after seven years. He's asked for parole 11 times. The Japanese system and society are very different to ours. Re-applying the death penalty would have to come as part of our current legal system or as a massive, sweeping change, which is a bigger question.
i dont think so. we need to punish more serious crimes and rehabilitate petty crimes, especially when convicts are young.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3148175/McCulloch-My-life-on-the-outside.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mone And as has been said, the Lockerbie Bomber.
It's difficult to tell from the first two links but have those people been released from prison or were they just allowed out on day visits?
They are being prepared for release, McCulloch was even offered a council house in Dumbarton (Risk Street belive it or not) until the locals started a petition. These two animals should have never been released but they are, that's why I would like to see them swing. I know it's never going to happen but as I said if Life actually meant life then fewer people would be for the death penalty.
