The sentence handed out in a murder case is individual and based on the circumstances of the case. There are already degrees of murder to that extent. In all murder cases, however, the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. And yet there are still miscarriages of justice. If those (innocent) people have been shown 'beyond reasonable doubt' to be guilty of murder, how do you propose we avoid hanging innocent people if your plan for the reintroduction of the death penalty is successful?

And that's without considering:

1) the trustworthiness of the police. I can entirely understand why police would, in horrific cases, be so determined to bring a killer to book that they'd bend the rules if they thought that they had the right person and could only get them that way, but we know precisely where that leads. And that's without going down the route of discussing a case such as that of Daniel Morgan;

2) DNA evidence is not 100% effective'

3) the ethical question of why, if the taking of life is such a serious crime, it becomes acceptable for the state to do exactly that.

If anyone missed the original screening on Question Time of Priti ("it really is"icon_wink.gif Patel debating the death penalty with Ian Hislop, then it's well worth searching the two names on youtube

"Ian Hislop explains Capital Punishment to an Idiot."

A pretty fair and succinct summation.

The major problem is she is a member of our legislature, not only that, she's also marked as a rising star among Camoron's coterie

I would not mind seeing more of her she is quite priti

God made him think it.

Are you really so shallow?

Interestingly there have been a few occasions over here of late, where a person has punched someone in a fight, who has fallen, smashed their head on the pavement and died.

Also, If someone went out to just give someone a little "slap" as a warning without any intention other than to fire off a warning shot and they cracked their head and died. What happens then Petrocelli?

..

Just because i dont like Tories does not mean i would not sleep with them.

So the answer to your question is YES.

Manslaughter most likely.

Yep! and proud of it.

As I grew up she took my free school milk off me, started the erosion of free university education, introduced the poll tax, put many of my friends fathers on the dole, condemned many of my contemporaries to a life on benefits, shut the pits, battered the unions, oversaw the demise of manufacturing in this country, sold off all the essential services, deregulated the city letting a bunch of spivs take over... I could go on , but the list is too long! To top it all, her clinging on to life has lost me a fortune in death sweeps!

As for my mother, she didn't destroy the lives and hopes of millions of people!

Are you suggesting if Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, Rose West or Peter Sutcliffe had been executed there was the slightest chance of a miscarriage of justice? These are the types of individuals I am suggesting are suitable for execution.

On the state taking lives - we think it is OK to go and murder innocent people in places like Afghanistan but it not OK to carry out controlled virtually painless death on those convicted of the most serious of crimes?

So where is the common denominator between those four other than the fact that they were convicted of murder, what is the specific part of their crime that make it suitable for the death penalty and other murders not ?

so you hate the tories because they stopped free school milk and shut some pits, yet you vote labour even though they stopped free school milk and shut down more pits. interesting. oh, and that whole 'demise of manufacturing' nonsense is just that.

Remind us again, how old were you during Thatchers reign?

[url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/Read all about it[/url, in particular this bit:

"Unlawful Act Manslaughter
This is where the killing is the result of:
[list
[*the defendant's unlawful act (not omission); [/*:m
[*where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm "[/*:m[/list:u

What would your criteria be in deciding who are the worst murderers who are also the most obviously guilty?

For example, would you treat Ian Huntley different to Myra Hindley? He was convicted by an 11-1 majority verdict. Would that spare him the noose?

old enough to remember it, but what that has to do with anything is anyone's guess.

All four were predetermined cold blooded murder i.e. they intended/planned to kill the victim. They were not under threat from the victims nor was it "self defence"

If you were a working (or not working in a lot of cases) adult with a young family and elderly relatives you would understand how some feel about the heartless bitch.

and? then hate her. but, and this is the thing, don't spout off about all the terrible, terrible things she and her party did while at the same time giving the ultimate backing for a party by voting for them when they did the same things. it makes you look a bit of a dick.

But there was still the [ipotential[/i for a miscarriage of justice in their cases. It's not too long ago that a woman was convicted of killing, both on separate occasions, her two children. That's the very definition of cold blooded - kills one child and feels so little remorse that she later kills another.

Anyway, it turns out she didn't kill either child and her conviction was overturned a few years later. What would have happened to her under your plans? Dug up and reanimated?

I didn't vote for Cameron