Tia Sharp

[Dozno9]

They'll never walk the streets. Both's their lives are miserable and i'm glad about that

Ian Brady is held under the Mental Health act and will never be released and Huntley whilst serving a minimum tariff could still be released.

Roy Whiting was convicted of sexually assaulting a child, was subsequently released and then killed Sarah Payne.

I see little point in keeping these people alive and whether they want it or not is irrelevant for me
if they want to top themselves they will.

[Arriba]

Ian Brady is held under the Mental Health act and will never be released and Huntley whilst serving a minimum tariff could still be released.

Roy Whiting was convicted of sexually assaulting a child, was subsequently released and then killed Sarah Payne.

I see little point in keeping these people alive and whether they want it or not is irrelevant for me
if they want to top themselves they will.

Think using their bodies for medical research is better than putting them to death personally.

What about those who get wrongly convicted? history shows there have been plenty of people sentenced to death or jailed when innocent

[Batch]

history shows there have been plenty of people sentenced to death or jailed when innocent

That is the only thing I have against capital punishment. To be honest its quite a big thing, reason enough not to bring it back.

Instead I say put them in a 6x4 cell and leave them there for the rest of their lives. If the state gets it wrong, massive compensation..

[Dozno9]

Think using their bodies for medical research is better than putting them to death personally.

What about those who get wrongly convicted? history shows there have been plenty of people sentenced to death or jailed when innocent

Your argument of using their bodies for medical research is then pointless when you then argue that they could actually be innocent.

It's years since I looked into this but death row has released something like 120 odd people in 30 years. With DNA advances there will be less wrongful convictions in the years to come but I see your point of innocence etc and is the biggest argument against CP.

[Arriba]

Your argument of using their bodies for medical research is then pointless when you then argue that they could actually be innocent.

It's years since I looked into this but death row has released something like 120 odd people in 30 years. With DNA advances there will be less wrongful convictions in the years to come but I see your point of innocence etc and is the biggest argument against CP.

It's not pointless as the two people i mentioned are 100% guilty.
My second point is a seperate issue.

[ghanimah]

Ian Brady is held under the Mental Health act and will never be released and Huntley whilst serving a minimum tariff could still be released.

Roy Whiting was convicted of sexually assaulting a child, was subsequently released and then killed Sarah Payne.

I see little point in keeping these people alive and whether they want it or not is irrelevant for me
if they want to top themselves they will.

The irony is that Huntley is not a good argument for the death penalty. The death penalty has the unintended consequence of a higher burden of proof among juries who are reluctant to convict.

Huntley was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence - what exactly happened in his house has never been fully established. So it is likely, even probable, that the Jury could have accepted a manslaughter plea instead, knowing that otherwise they would have to make the decision of sending a man to his death based on a lack of evidence.

The average term for manslaughter is six years, so Huntley would have long been free by now.

[Dozno9]

It's not pointless as the two people i mentioned are 100% guilty.

Says who, the courts? The same courts that you say get it wrong sometimes.

[Arriba]

Says who, the courts? The same courts that you say get it wrong sometimes.

It's clear they didn't have it wrong in those two cases.
They are guilty and you'd have them killed. I personally don't give a shit either way to be honest but prefer the mdical research route as i keep saying. If they died from that, at least it might go someway to cancer cures etc.

[Dozno9]

The irony is that Huntley is not a good argument for the death penalty. The death penalty has the unintended consequence of a higher burden of proof among juries who are reluctant to convict.

Huntley was convicted solely on circumstantial evidence - what exactly happened in his house has never been fully established. So it is likely, even probable, that the Jury could have accepted a manslaughter plea instead, knowing that otherwise they would have to make the decision of sending a man to his death based on a lack of evidence.

The average term for manslaughter is six years, so Huntley would have long been free by now.

In some states in the US the jury decides the decision of the case and the judge passes sentence, death or not and removes that burden from the jury. Often, other factors such as aggravating circumstances aren't stated in court to prevent the jury knowing that they are sentencing a man to death if found guilty.

Finding someone guilty at the first trial is ony the start of the process, people wait around 15-20 years on average on death row before death after appeal and re-trials.

[ghanimah]

Finding someone guilty at the first trial is ony the start of the process, people wait around 15-20 years on average on death row before death after appeal and re-trials.

Exactly, which negates the 'hanging is cheaper' argument.

[bigbobjoylove]

I would rather kill some of the fuckers than pay £50k or whatever it is a year to keep them in the nick.

Read somewhere that it actually costs more money to execute someone due to all the costs involved in appeals. That's the US though, i'm this isn't the case in Saudi Arabia and the like.

[joteddyred]

If they're dead, how are they being punished? Once dead, people have no feelings, no emotions. They feel no pain or suffering.

Keep them alive and make then suffer. That's punishment, not death.

That's the issue though, not enough of them do suffer. We're too soft on convicted murderers because of their human rights, so they end up with a reasonably cushdy little life in prison and being kept out of harms way in solita+
ry confinement when necessary for their own safety.  In the majority of cases they can also rebuild their lives (if they choose to) when they're released.

As far as I'm concerned you should lose your human rights when you make the decision to take someone elses life and it's time a life sentence meant exatly that rather than 17 or 18 years, which seems to be a common tarriff.

Personally I'm in the pro capital punishment camp, particularly in cases against children.  As already pointed out miscarriages of justice are much rarer now than they used to be due to the advances of DNA technology etc.

[Coca Fola]

You could just send them all into space and try and set up a colony on the moon or something. If they die it's no biggie.

[adje]

I would rather kill some of the fuckers than pay £50k or whatever it is a year to keep them in the nick.

no you wouldn't-not really

[Coca Fola]

no you wouldn't-not really

Why waste money on keeping them alive?