Days to weeks. "The main reason I ask is because of the Randall Dale Evans case as featured in The Thin Blue Line (the documentary ..." The trial is not post sentence processing. It is a completely separate predecessor process.
And when it turns out the conviction was bogus and somebody wrongfully convicted was executed what is the process then? "Whoops, we done goofed"? Also, when capital punishment existed in the UK, the trial and the sentence processing were part of the same process as the judge handed down the sentence once the jury delivered their verdict, as was the case for Ruth Ellis, John Christie, John Haigh etc etc Personally I believe the Japanese have the right idea: the death penalty is only handed down to serial killers and mass murderers, so there's no chance of somebody wrongfully being given the death penalty such as the Randall Dale Adams case (hey, I got his name right this time!) or blatant injustices such as Derek Bentley hanging because the actual murderer was underage so couldn't be given the death penalty, and they don't hand down the death sentence until the appeals process has finished, so for example those responsible for the Tokyo sarin gas attack were initially tried in 1995, but only received the death penalty in 2003-4 when their appeals failed (although that doesn't explain why the seven who received the death penalty remained on death row until July 2018, where they were all hung on the same day) Obviously this wouldn't stop people demanding the death penalty for specific crimes, and the definition of serial/mass murder would need to be strongly defined given cases such as Ian Huntley which would be a grey area so for argument's sake I'll use the FBI definition, where a mass murder is four or more at one time while serial murder is three or more murders committed as separate events. Obviously that wouldn't make the Daily Mail happy, but since very little makes them happy I'm sure we can live with them being stroppy that they can't string up the bloke who killed Alesha Macphail if we point out that Tommy Robinson's mate who carried out the Finsbury Park van attack can't be executed either
Wrongful conviction due to X bearing false witness ?? Trial of X. Punishment on conviction : death of X by execution. So tell me, if you are X (bent copper, nasty vermin etc) , are you going to risk the same fate being visited upon yourself ?? The material rewards for you doing so better be immense eh. What, you were PAID by Y to bear false witness ?? Trial of Y. Punishment on conviction : death of Y by execution. All that remains now is the trial process itself. Raising the bar from "beyond reasonable doubt" to say statistical "5 sigma" should suffice for potential incompetence.
Going back to the Adams case, the worst that happened to the crooked psychiatrist was expelled by the American Psychiatric Association in 1995 - 16 years after Adams' conviction and, chillingly, the majority of the 167 cases he was witness for the prosecution for ended with death sentences, which basically makes him one of the most prolific serial killers in American history. Okay, second worst, as he died of lung cancer in 2004... That's why I say use the Japanese system of only executing mass murderers and serial killers, because that eliminates any chance of false testimony leading to somebody being wrongfully sentenced to death, because when there's half a dozen corpses under the patio that show signs of being buried over a period of years it's pretty difficult to try and frame the neighbours who moved in last year for it - which sadly managed to work in the John Christie case, as Christie framed a lodger at his house for two of his own murders that led to the lodger being executed and Christie going on to commit a further four murders
Are they laughing at the "collective" agreement, the 'Corbyn Trap' or us........? It's all ****ing 3 isn't it? ****s.
Should it based on something as primal as revenge ?? To "let the numbers decide" is far more objective (and less emotive) than claims such as yours (in fact, this holds for nearly everything in society) .
They can dress it up in any fancy clothes they like, it’s society taking revenge. There’s no other logical rationale for it. And this is ignoring the question of the hypocrisy of murdering those who murder.
It costs the UK nation X thousand quid to incarcerate the likes of Brady, Hindley, Kray et al. 1. During that time, did they contribute to society in their penance to the sum of Y thousand quid (where Y >= X) during their punishment ?? Did more road potholes get filled ?? Did more hospitals/schools get built ?? 2. Did the penal regime restore them to a state where they could return to a free society safe that they would no longer be a danger therein ?? The answers to 1 and 2 are both no (emphatically for 1) . Therefore no material value of any kind in their incarceration. The numbers have decided : their death is materially better all round for society. QED.
Heard it all before. The moral argument doesn’t stand up. It’s society taking revenge and committing murder mainly on behalf of the victims family. Quite often whether that’s what they actually want, or not.
The (trivial) proof was based solely on the numbers. Morals were (and are) irrelevant. Similarly with what you have "heard before" . And further to that : morals are SUBJECTIVE, numbers are OBJECTIVE.
The moral argument is irrelevant?? Subjective? You either agree with societal revenge or you don’t. Really??... Yeah, righto then!!.....
If your mum,dad,sister or/and brother were murdered,would you all be happy with incarceration? Hell no! You'd want the bastard strung up!
To an OBJECTIVE analysis by the numbers, correct. "Subjective? You either agree with societal revenge or you don’t" . 1. Morals are subjective, They always have been in humanity, and always will be, 2. ALL penal regimes are by definition "social revenge" .
That’s a little different to saying the moral argument is irrelevant!!.. There is an argument that there can be a reforming aspect to imprisonment. Admittedly, it’s currently a small one. But there are notable successes too. So that argument doesn’t wash. The death penalty has no other possible rationale apart from pure revenge.
No such thing was said. What WAS said is that moral aspects are irrelevant to the proof given. "The death penalty has no other possible rationale apart from pure revenge." Again, trivially proven otherwise.
You quite clearly said ‘the moral argument is irrelevant’ similarly with when I said I’d heard it all before. Well, I have heard it all before. It didn’t stand up then and it doesn’t stand up now. Where us there any proof that the death penalty is anything but revenge??
"The (trivial) proof was based solely on the numbers. Morals were (and are) irrelevant. Similarly with what you have "heard before" . " As stated (again) , morals had no bearing on the proof (ie they were/are irrelevant) . "Where us there any proof that the death penalty is anything but revenge??" https://www.not606.com/threads/the-politics-thread.323088/page-506#post-12698314 A (trivial) proof that a death penalty can be imposed by society based solely on the numbers (financial ones in this case) .
That's not proof, is it? It goes up against real world applications of the death penalty, which show that it costs more.
