Wrong.

Look - if you're going to advocate a major change to the UK justice system, don't you think it would be a good idea to have at least [isome[/i clue as to how it operates first? Do a little research?

Would executing Brady serve any useful purpose whatsoever? No. It would not bring back those he murdered, it would not deter another maniac from doing the same thing, and it would not be any further protection for society.

Dress it up however you like, but those advocating the death penalty are simply looking for vengeance.

If murder is wrong, then it's wrong for the state to murder. Simple.

No, that is completely wrong.


... but pleaded not guilty


... but assuming you mean Fred, he was not the only person who lived in the house, and was never convicted of any offence.

You're both wrong. Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean 100% certain. The word "reasonable" is important.
If a defendant, eg Ian Huntley, puts forward a plausible defense it doesn't mean that he has to be acquitted on the basis that its 0.0000001% possible that it could have happened that way. That would mean having to prove beyond all doubt, which isnt the standard.

And that's part of the difficulty. "Reasonable" is subjective. Your reasonable doubt might be unreasonable, or fanciful, to me.

The juror has to be 100% certain that the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the point I was making. They don't have to be 51% sure, 75% sure or even 90% sure. They have to be 100% convinced that the person committed the act that they are alleged to have committed. If the individual juror had a doubt about a person's guilt that [ithey personally[/i considered to be reasonable, they wouldn't be 100% sure.

How can you say it's wrong to kill and then kill them to prove how wrong it is?

What i would do is the harsher the crime the less privilege you get in prison, the worst crime leaves you with a room and basic food and complete isolation.

Someone that doesn't pay a fine and gets a couple of weeks, they get the Playstation* and snooker table with Sky TV

*Daily Mail©

A question for people.

Does a murder trial in the UK courts only need to be 10-2 and not a 12-0 vote on the jury, to reach a verdict? I think, from memory, this may be the case.

If so, beyond reasonable doubt only need apply to 10 people, so 2 can have doubt.

If true. Doesn't this make a mockery of the term "beyond reasonable doubt" with regards to capital punishment?

If the sentencing wasn't a subjective decision of the judge then everyone who committed a certain crime would get a the same sentence - take Chev Walker and Leon Price as examples both committed a similar offence - it could actually be argued Price's was actually worse, Chev got prison and Price got suspended!!

So if a jury cannot get all jurors to convict they judge will accept a majority decision - that is 83% sure if its two who abstain - not understanding what you don't get?

No one knows either if a juror is 100% - they may still have some doubts but on balance they think the probability is that they did it they will convict that is not 100% sure.

On the first point see comments below

Sutcliffe pleaded not guilty through insanity - not that he didn't do it, he had already confessed to the police - I think.

On the Wests I mean't Rose!!

In armed combat hundreds/thousands of innocent people will get killed which I assume you would consider acceptable or would you also like to ban the armed forces too?

How many convictions for murder have been overturned in the last 50 years - in those cases some people will have many years in prison wrongly - so if we take your argument to its logical conclusion we should not put anyone in prison just in case we get it wrong?

I agree with both points - the death penalty should be an option and again you then come down to the subjectivity of the judge.

Thats just crazy.

Judges don't have a great deal of subjectivity at the moment, especially in murder charges, they can't for instance decide that six months probation would be best for one particular case and then get out of bed in a foul mood the next day and give another murderer forty years and no probation.

The only time that the death sentence has been considered in this generations lifetime is for the murder of police officers and given the esteem that most police forces are held in now, and the esteem for which the current government have for the police (and vice-versa) then I doubt very much that that consideration is on the agenda at all.

The judge would decide whether a death sentence would be appropriate and different judges will have different views. We see this everyday and I gave an example of subjectivity in sentencing with the RL players.

The death sentence in this generation seems to have been considered for jihadists as well?

There are lots of topics on here that are pie in the sky doesn't stop them getting debated?

Apart from saving some money - debatable when you look at the USA and how long and how lucrative the appeals must be for those in the law business - what else would you hope to achieve by having a death sentence for certain categories ?

Do you honestly believe that murders in those categories would decrease, do you have any proof of countries of a similar social standing to the UK where, say, mass murder is unheard of because of a death sentence policy ?

Or is it just about revenge ?

Evidence from the US, in states where capital punishment was [ire[/i-introduced, suggest that the murder rate increased after the reintroduction.

The judge [imay[/i accept a majority decision in [isome[/i cases, but the fact remains that each individual juror who convicts has to be 100% sure that the person is guilty. And as I pointed out before, even a unanimous verdict can be the wrong one.

I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you really saying that the death penalty should be available in cases where the verdict is unanimous, but not where a person is found guilty by majority verdict? Can't you see any problems with that?



They are instructed to be sure beyond reasonable doubt before convicting, not on balance of probabilities. If your contention is that some will ignore that advice and convict on balance of probabilities, then that's even more reason not to bring back the death penalty, wouldn't you say?

The only one benefit i can see with the death penalty is as a bargaining tool pre trial for prosecutors.

No they don 't, the test is beyond reasonable doubt, a long way short of 100% certainty.

As I said before, if they had a reasonable doubt, they wouldn't be 100% sure.

Then no one would be convicted unless the jury saw the crime themselves.

Not really. If the evidence leaves them in no reasonable doubt that the crime was committed by the defendant, they are 100% sure. Unless you consider them thinking "well, this alternative scenario [icould[/i have happened, but it's unreasonable to think that it did" counts as them being less than 100% sure.

FFS, no they are not.
The concept isn't that hard to understand.

You wouldn't think so. It's pretty much a semantic argument anyway, and I'm not going to sit and argue semantics with someone who's never been known to give an inch in any discussion. It's certainly not 'a long way short' of 100% as you suggest. If a juror has [ino reasonable doubt[/i that the defendant is guilty, they're 100% sure, or as near as damn it.

My main reason for supporting capital punishment is to differentiate between crimes not that it might reduce crimes of this nature. I don't see what value society is getting in keeping Peter Sutcliffe in prison until he dies?