You can have the conclusion to this if the other one is just a load of liberal wet lettuces then. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1614&context=llr
So you’re admitting the first website was biased ? You really should check before you put it out there as fact
No. Like I said on this topic you won’t find many articles that wouldn’t be considered biased as the arguments for capital punishment are either moronic, debunked or non-existent
Yes, I realise there's no easy answers. I also, acknowledge the arguments about miscarriages of justice and not trusting the police. I just feel that certain murderers simply don't deserve to live. I thought the nurse had said something like "I did it because I'm evil"?
“Legal costs: Almost all people who face the death penalty cannot afford their own attorney. The state must assign public defenders or court-appointed lawyers to represent them (the accepted practice is to assign two lawyers), and pay for the costs of the prosecution as well.” This would make no difference if we have a system of capital punishment or not. The defendant would still have the right to the same representation. It’s using a non existent argument for it being more expensive
There was a post-it note or similar found that said that, but her defence denied she was writing about the deaths of the children
What about this?............ The death penalty is far more expensive than a system utilizing life-without-parole sentences as an alternative punishment. Some of the reasons for the high cost of the death penalty are the longer trials and appeals required when a person’s life is on the line, the need for more lawyers and experts on both sides of the case, and the relative rarity of executions. Most cases in which the death penalty is sought do not end up with the death penalty being imposed. And once a death sentence is imposed, the most likely outcome of the case is that the conviction or death sentence will be overturned in the courts. Most defendants who are sentenced to death essentially end up spending life in prison, but at a highly inflated cost because the death penalty was involved in the process. Makes sense to me.
Yep makes sense……however I would hope you agree that the part I quoted doesn’t? Of course this all refer to the USA where their system seems, on the face of it, pretty inept. If we were to bring in the death penelty for certain crimes that are beyond doubt….then surely we could come up with another way. I’m not one sided either way and can see both points of view.
Moi ?…….you know I’m not like that Strolls Nah honestly this time I wasn’t particularly, I was genuinely looking at both sides. Twin 1 recently had to do a presentation at school about the pros/cons of the death penalty and he opted to be pro……..I debated with him from an anti side. Wasn’t looking for a row just like to see all points of view.
I'm definitely anti, mainly because of the potential for killing innocent people. People often make the cost argument, but that is pretty effectively demolished by the piece that Watford posted, in my opinion. Plus, killing someone out of retribution just seems barbaric to me.
But, and purely for debate, if it was someone who is 100% guilty, has done the most evil and vilest crimes to kids, and makes no attempt at remorse…..someone like Robert Black or Sidney Cook, then don’t you feel retribution and revenge is somewhat justified ? God forbid if that was my kid that was tortured and killed I’d want the **** killed by my own hands. Of course that opens a debate on WHY *****philes and child killers do what they do…are some inherently evil and others victims of their own upbringings. I find this subject quite interesting
Lucy Letby seems to have been motivated by control, thrill, attention-seeking and anger. Some have said she is psychopathic, yet she expressed remorse and disgust in her private writing. She was a Nurse Jekyll and Ms Hyde.
