Both sides of the argument bring in favourable statistics to support their claims, I only know one fact, it prevents re-offending 100%

Getting back to the programme, did anyone else think that the Home Secretary bore more than a passing resemblance to Sun hack Jane Moore?

I doubt that was purely happenstance

Yup, and on ocassion it will stop people who haven't commited any crime having the chance to do anything else atall. Or are they acceptable colateral losses?

Try looking up the case before commenting

Blakely was anything but a poor bloke

Just as extra locks on you doors wont stop a determined burgler, the death penalty wont stop a determined murderer.
The death penalty should not be looked on as a deterent but as THE punishment for the most terrible of crimes...murder...
Lets just take Ian Huntley again, what he did was the worst crime anyone could think of...he gained the trust of those two little girls, lured them to his house and MURDERED them and then dumped their two lifeless bodies in a ditch to rot, i hate to think what those girls went through in their final moments, fighting to save each other, who knows, but DNA evidence convicted this piece of ####.
Anybody who thinks this animal deserves the best medical treatment and to be sat in a cell with all mod cons that some people can only dream of owning, is beyond me, as is making out people wanting the death penalty for people like him to be just as bad as him. I dare say as well, going by some peoples posts they would feel vindicated in their views if in say 15 yrs huntley was given the all clear to resume a normal life in society and did so without any further "problems".............................as long he didn't get moved next door to them.

Ah, so Ruth Ellis didn't deserve to hang for taken a human life, but Blakeley deserved to die for being a $hit. Interesting concept.

Havent read this post all the way through so dont know if it's already been mentioned, but, I read a truly fantastic story in the paper the other day documenting the trial of a peodophile in Suadi who had been abducting children aged between 3 and 7 and abusing then murdering them, leaving one child to die of dehydration in the desert.
The judge decided that the offender was to be beheaded then to show that this inhuman behaviour will not be tollerated they will take his headless corpse and nail it to a cross in the city square. This punishment was to take place publicly, with a large cheering crowd.

Got a lot of time for them Saudis.

Ian Huntley has now attempted suicide on 3 occasions since being locked up. He will never be released we know it and he knows it. He has a lifetime of anguish to contemplate what he has done.

Offer him the death sentence and he would thank you.

Careful, you're showing wooly liberal tendancies by not demanding he be publicly executed and then dragged round the streets to everyone can on him.




Does anyone have an opinion on what should be done regarding the possible execution/murder of those wrongly convicted, I asked earlier but it seems to have been ignored in the general 'kill em all kneejerkery.

Why not leave a razor blade and rope in the cell of every convicted murderer and phaedophile and if they choose to help the tax payer and top themselves it will save all the dogooders breath in telling the rest of us that their horrendous crimes were caused by a bad upbringing and other related e.

So you believe there is the possibility that Huntley just might innocent and future advances in criminal detection just might prove this?

Problem with comprehension?

Where did he suggest that Huntley may be innocent?

Huntley no, (now if you can see where I said that I'd appreciate it) I'll give you a clue, the bit you highlighted pretty well excludes huntley from the people I was thinking about.

The Guildford Bombers, Colin Stagg, the Guy that was found guilty of murdering Jill Dando etc etc etc....

Death sentence will never happen.
Kill 20 people in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses and all you have to do is admit your guilt. The judge will be so impressed that you havent wasted thousands of pounds going to court and that you are repentant you'll get community service.

Maybe one day they will find out who actually did do those crimes, but next time do the investigation properly so as not to leave anyloop holes.

And perhaps they'd just execute innocent people on the basis of unsafe prosecutions. (for avoidance of doubt for the terminally dim this does not include Huntley, Brady, Peter Sutcliffe et al).

You still appear to be of the opinion that the ocasional execution of an innocent party is acceptable. Why is that?

So do you agree with the death penalty for those like Huntley etc that have been proved guilty beyond any doubt ?

No, for a variety of reasons.

How many cases do you think have been proved beyond any doubt? the criteria is "beyond reasonable doubt". Which is all well and good, but not a lot of use if you've lopped someones head off on the basis of what, at the time was "reasonable" evidence.

You'll end up with a two tier sentencing system, those that are "very very 100% we hope definatly guilty" those that are "well we're pretty sure it was you, so we're going to lock you up but not kill you just in case we've got it wrong somewhere along the line" In which case the issue of should they even be locked up arises.

None of the above means that I subscribe to the mailesque rants of prisons being like 5 star hotels though. Or that I feel people should be let out for good behaviour or any of the more fanciful accusations thrown about by the lynch mob types.

Anyhow, you've got a yes/no answer from me. So once again, is the execution of an innocent party ever acceptable? in all cases? if for example it was a family member/friend that was the victim of an unsafe/incorrect conviction you'd presumably just shrug your shoulders and get on with your life?

In the case of The Guildford Bombers, Colin Stagg,and the Guy that was found guilty of murdering Jill Dando, it was either the way the police got the conviction or/and ADVANCES in crime detection that actually cast DOUBT over their convictions.....that is DOUBT.....hence their release. What if the murder was caught on cctv, would that be good enough for a capital punishment conviction? www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... t-tesco.do or witnesses actually watching the murder news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 176471.stm www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... costume.do www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ma ... 96025.html Perhaps some of this type of murder could be avoided if you thought that by kicking someone in the head and you kill them, your life is at risk as well, but with this type of killing you've always got the...i didn't mean to do it, i was on drugs or i was drunk and didn't know what i was doing defence. Just remember, this type of murder can happen to you, your friends or your family just as they go about their daily lives, even your friends could commit this type of MURDER, but while there are people guaranteeing their care and every comfort in jail with the probability of an early release we are not safe on our streets.

In the case of The Guildford Bombers, Colin Stagg,and the Guy that was found guilty of murdering Jill Dando, it was either the way the police got the conviction or/and ADVANCES in crime detection that actually cast DOUBT over their convictions.....that is DOUBT.....hence their release. What if the murder was caught on cctv, would that be good enough for a capital punishment conviction? www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... t-tesco.do or witnesses actually watching the murder news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/mers ... 176471.stm www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... costume.do www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ma ... 96025.html Perhaps some of this type of murder could be avoided if you thought that by kicking someone in the head and you kill them, your life is at risk as well, but with this type of killing you've always got the...i didn't mean to do it, i was on drugs or i was drunk and didn't know what i was doing defence. Just remember, this type of murder can happen to you, your friends or your family just as they go about their daily lives, even your friends could commit this type of MURDER, but while there are people guaranteeing their care and every comfort in jail with the probability of an early release we are not safe on our streets.

You've still not answered my question. Why's that?

If your reffering to "You still appear to be of the opinion that the ocasional execution of an innocent party is acceptable. Why is that?"

I think my last post answers that, advances in forensic science and DNA profiling over the last few years got these people released,just as it would have stopped them being convicted in the first place had we had this technology then...do you agree? Just as nowadays it convicts you without any doubt. We are not talking convictions of the past, we are talking technologies of the 21st century.

21st century like Jill Dando's you mean?

So, yes it would be ok? Cool, just so we know.

Pretty well every advance has been seen to be infailible when it was introduced, that doesnt stop people interpreting it wrongly either thoiuigh accident or a deliberate act.

So looking at it another way, the evidence that got The Guildford Bombers, Colin Stagg, Barry George (thats the Guy that was found guilty of murdering Jill Dando) off could also be wrong.You know as well as i do these lawyers today can get, even a murderer(reduced to manslaughter) off due to technicalities.

Anyway so your happy that child murderers even when proven without doubt DESERVE the right to live(as in huntleys case and many more), just in case we are proven wrong in the future. OK thats your view, i have mine.

I was going to leave you with a thought (scenario) but it sent chills down my spine even to suggest it, althought you might guess what it was.

Yes it could be, but that brings me back to the earlier point about its lot easier to "fix the mistake" if you've just banged someone up for a few years, its somewhat more difficult if you've hung/shot/poisoned them. Its not ideal, I never claimed it was, but I'd rather not execute people wrongly. My earlier comments on a two tier system answer the second paragraph. You can't have a differing penalty depending on how sure you are you're right. Therefore IMO you can't have a death penalty.

Why cant you have a differing system based on the level of accuracy/type of the proof? DNA evidence for example that is 100% or thereabout accurate or un-arguable video evidence? Cases bases 100% on witness statements where witnesses have been known to be wrong would then be a 2nd tier that comes with life imprisonment instead?

I think a bigger issue than the death penalty in this country in the length of sentences given for every crime. There was the case recently of the hacker who wanted to face trial in the uk cos he would get 10 years but in america he would have got 100 years.