Yet another death row inmate has been freed after "new" evidence was turned up showing he was innocent (of murder at least) all along. Yet again, we see similar causes for the original verdict - shoddy defence work and quite likely a degree of racial bias in the prosecution and jury. The shoddy defence and simple unwillingness of police and prosectors to change their views once they have decided someone is guilty are depressingly familiar in these stories. edition.cnn.com/2014/03/11/us/lo ... ?hpt=hp_t4 Regardless of views on the rights and wrongs of the death penalty being applied to those everybody "knows" to be guilty/evil, surely these blatant miscarriages of justice highlight why the death penalty simply shouldn't be used. There's an article linked to the above report where a death penalty advocate argues for the firing squad instead of lethal injection, and argues this is a fit punishment for the worst of the worst. Completely missing the point that in some cases the "worst of the worst" are in fact completely innocent.

Yet another death row inmate has been freed after "new" evidence was turned up showing he was innocent (of murder at least) all along. Yet again, we see similar causes for the original verdict - shoddy defence work and quite likely a degree of racial bias in the prosecution and jury. The shoddy defence and simple unwillingness of police and prosectors to change their views once they have decided someone is guilty are depressingly familiar in these stories. edition.cnn.com/2014/03/11/us/lo ... ?hpt=hp_t4 Regardless of views on the rights and wrongs of the death penalty being applied to those everybody "knows" to be guilty/evil, surely these blatant miscarriages of justice highlight why the death penalty simply shouldn't be used. There's an article linked to the above report where a death penalty advocate argues for the firing squad instead of lethal injection, and argues this is a fit punishment for the worst of the worst. Completely missing the point that in some cases the "worst of the worst" are in fact completely innocent.

There is a case going to the UK Supreme Court today to force Suffolk Police to hand over the evidence that they used to convict a man of murder in 2006, most police forces will submit evidence for forensic review but for some reason the Suffolk Police seem rather reluctant to do this in this case ...

And there are still intelligent members of the public out there who continually demand the death sentence for murder...

Nail-Head.

[urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/clare-algar/death-penalty_b_4084101.html[/url

Take one of the killers of Lee Rigby though - there is no doubt whatsoever he was guilty.

He will spend the rest of his life in Prison with no chance of being rehabilitated and let back into society.

He will cost the taxpayer £40,000 a year for the rest of his absolutely pointless life. I will let you do the maths on how much that will cost if he lives another 30/40/50 years.

He could also escape. A small chance I would suggest, but a chance none the less.

Of course there is a case for the death penalty. They just definitive proof, such as mass eye witnesses or video footage. The 'typical' murder perp who is found guilty through the normal detective work and the weight of probability based on combinations of potentially circumstantial evidence probably shouldn't be considered for the death penalty due to there being doubt.

If there is doubt then he or she is, by our justice system innocent never mind not to be considered for the death penalty.

I have sat on two jury's and the foreman on one (nothing as serious as murder but one was for GBH) and I can tell you for certain any doubt and "not guilty" is the verdict. It was very educational.

What you can't do is have an automatic death because you can't define what "definitive proof" means. How about a confession? Many of those have been proved wrong.

We as a society can afford to lock the few people required to be locked up for life to ensure innocent people like the Birmingham Six are not executed wrongly.

It is the price of justice.

No idea why no one gets this.

You'd have to rejig the legal system considerably to make such distinctions. As it stands, a court either finds someone guilty or not guilty based on the evidence. There might be ten eyewitnesses and CCV footage of one murder, and only forensic evidence for another almost identical murder. But if found guilty, there's no differentiation post trial - one offender is not "more" guilty because the evidence was better.

In any event we can all point to cases where the evidence is seemingly irrefutable, but where do you draw the line? I'd bet that the police and prosecutors involved in almost all of these cases of death row inmates being freed would have claimed the same for those cases as well. Who would stand up for a convicted child killer in a highly publicised case?

If you wanted to add a further step to determine whether the death penalty could be applied, you'd need the equivalent of a complete retrial going over all the evidence again - with someone's life at stake nothing less could possibly be morally acceptable. You'd also need to introduce different legal concepts entirely to those that currently exist.

It tends to be death penalty advocates who raise specific cases as examples. But every murder is a specific case with a specific human victim. Cases like the murder of Lee Rigby are the exception where there is video and multiple eyewitness evidence. Why? Because the men involved wanted it to be seen. Its an odd case to raise for the death penalty anyway, because if you were to have them executed they'd probably be happier, as then they'd be martyrs.

For many people, the case for the death penalty is poor at best. If it comes down to cost savings in measuring lives then lets just execute all offenders who'd get jail time of more than X years - the economics of it would be easy to calculate.

Good post. Michael Howard was in favour of the death penalty until the Birmingham Six were acquitted. As Home Secretary it would have been his call were the deathpenalty in place to have sent them to the gallows. Now he opposes it. I detest Howards's politics but he gained respect from me for his change of views.

So it isn't philosophically wrong to take someone's life as long as it's the state doing it?

Wedge, thin, end of.

Good post.

Yet another reason why the death penalty is so wrong.

I bet Lee Rigby's killers would have been shaking in their boots at the prospect of being executed. They sure put a lot of effort in trying to hide after they killed him.

For me, the main part of the prison sentence is the opportunity to reflect on the reason why one has been locked up which could lead to rehabilitation.

Anyone else you think your tax contribution is keeping alive unnecessarily?

There are probably some terminally ill people in hospitals....

There'll be mentally ill people – particularly those in prison because there's nowhere else to keep them safe.

Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

£40k a year so someone can sit in a cell all day and 'reflect'. Truly money well spent.

So just kill them. In fact kill all criminals. Why have prisons anyway?

A bit like your education.

A bit like all the junk food you eat.

I don't. But such a random comment helps illustrate my point.

You show no sign of having much in the way of an intellect.

You're all gut over brains, combined with an arrogant belief that you don't need to ever actually think about what you say or find reasons for it, be they philosophical, ethical or anything that might go beyond the occasional soundbite.

As this thread illustrates perfectly: you do not possess the skills to think about the issue in anything beyond a knee-jerk manner.

You're a perfect example of the outcomes of a dumbed-down public discourse.

Either that or you are simply trolling.

Where is your £40k from?

How do you put a value on someone's life? What would the equation be?

I think you missed part of my post, I'll assume it wasn't deliberate because the question was too taxing for you.

Simple explanation...

Radical religious follower needs to become a dead martyr in order to gain maximum publicity and his forty virgins...



Shoot him in the legs instead then put him in jail until he dies a natural death.

It'll probably ruin his life.

Yet again you show yourself as completely incapable of engaging in any kind of disucssion with sonmeone who may not share the same opinion as you.

Yet again you simply resort to cheap jibes about others education and label anyone who doesn't agree with you a troll.

Yet again you let yourself down.

Your contributions to this thread are simplistic in the extreme. Perhaps you'd care to show how wrong I am in my assessment of your intellectual abilities by responding to subsequent questions and offering something by way of a philosophical/ethical comment.

In the absence of any such contributions, you play the victim card, accusing me of saying that I call anyone I don't agree with a troll. That is errant nonsense for which you have not a shred of evidence, because none exists. It is the sort of the knee-jerk, gut response I mentioned.

Well done for illustrating it again.

Pot/kettle