Let's see them doing the Tyburn Jig!
Comments
-
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:A very difficult debate. To some failure to instigate a life for a life may condone the killing. Loved ones do not feel they get justice with sentencing in which life does not mean a lifetime's incarceration.
Many believe that the penal system now is generally too soft. Criminals have "rights" when surely loss of liberty should constitute a loss of those rights enjoyed by the law abiding public.
And what of the cost? Incarceration is expensive. Community service, is it working? Some would suggest re-introducing corporal punishment, the short sharp shock! Would you re-offend if it meant getting birched and not emptying bins for a week?
Perhaps the punishment should be decided by the victim of the crime. That's fairly egalitarian isn't it?
Death penalty is plenty more expensive in the states than a full life sentence.
Not so. The cost of appeals for clemency might ramp the cost up but the cost of throwing the switch (cheaper again if you do it on the night tariff) must be fairly negligible compared to the cost of 20 or 30 years of incarceration.
http://www.economist.com/node/13279051The states considering abolition, including Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and New Hampshire, have shifted the debate about capital punishment, at least in part, from morality to cost. Studies show that administering the death penalty is even more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life. The intensive jury selection, trials and appeals required in capital cases can take over a decade and run up a huge tab for the state. Death row, where prisoners facing execution are kept in separate cells under intense observation, is also immensely costly.
A recent study by the Urban Institute, a think-tank, estimates that the death penalty cost Maryland's taxpayers $186m between 1978 and 1999. According to the report, a case resulting in a death sentence cost $3m, almost $2m more than when the death penalty was not sought.
Do I get a badge or something?
Absolutely you do.
However, I think it is disingenuous. Why should jury selection in a capital case be anymore intensive than the same case if it isn't a capital crime? If someone is appealing against conviction then the cost of that appeal would be the same whether or not it carries the death penalty or not. However, if someone is appealing against the sentence well...are we saying that person would not be appealing if they weren't going to lose their life? In which case it is the clemency issue.Finally a trial is a trial the prosecution presents its case and the defence rebutts it where does the capital punishment element affect this unless you say you are going to have degrees of murder.
If the judicial system follows the route of trial- appeal-sentence then if the latter is the death penalty then it has to be cheaper than 20-30 years of prison.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:
Absolutely you do.
However, I think it is disingenuous. Why should jury selection in a capital case be anymore intensive than the same case if it isn't a capital crime? If someone is appealing against conviction then the cost of that appeal would be the same whether or not it carries the death penalty or not. However, if someone is appealing against the sentence well...are we saying that person would not be appealing if they weren't going to lose their life? In which case it is the clemency issue.Finally a trial is a trial the prosecution presents its case and the defence rebutts it where does the capital punishment element affect this unless you say you are going to have degrees of murder.
If the judicial system follows the route of trial- appeal-sentence then if the latter is the death penalty then it has to be cheaper than 20-30 years of prison.
It's more intensive because it's irreversible. Everyone has to be bloody sure.
It's a similar argument used against life-time bans for doping in sport. If one shady test means a lifetime ban, people will fight it much harder, so the margin for errors become so narrow that conviction rates drop.0 -
Does anyone know what recompense these US states who have the death penalty offer for incorrect executions?0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:
Absolutely you do.
However, I think it is disingenuous. Why should jury selection in a capital case be anymore intensive than the same case if it isn't a capital crime? If someone is appealing against conviction then the cost of that appeal would be the same whether or not it carries the death penalty or not. However, if someone is appealing against the sentence well...are we saying that person would not be appealing if they weren't going to lose their life? In which case it is the clemency issue.Finally a trial is a trial the prosecution presents its case and the defence rebutts it where does the capital punishment element affect this unless you say you are going to have degrees of murder.
If the judicial system follows the route of trial- appeal-sentence then if the latter is the death penalty then it has to be cheaper than 20-30 years of prison.
It's more intensive because it's irreversible. Everyone has to be bloody sure.It's a similar argument used against life-time bans for doping in sport. If one shady test means a lifetime ban, people will fight it much harder, so the margin for errors become so narrow that conviction rates drop.
But the standard of proof remains the same regardless of the punishment so it shouldn't matter what the outcome is. If you are saying that there should be higher standards because of the outcome then the process is fundamentally flawed.
Perhaps my original repost should have been: all other things being equal capital punishment is cheaper than life imprisonment0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:
Absolutely you do.
However, I think it is disingenuous. Why should jury selection in a capital case be anymore intensive than the same case if it isn't a capital crime? If someone is appealing against conviction then the cost of that appeal would be the same whether or not it carries the death penalty or not. However, if someone is appealing against the sentence well...are we saying that person would not be appealing if they weren't going to lose their life? In which case it is the clemency issue.Finally a trial is a trial the prosecution presents its case and the defence rebutts it where does the capital punishment element affect this unless you say you are going to have degrees of murder.
If the judicial system follows the route of trial- appeal-sentence then if the latter is the death penalty then it has to be cheaper than 20-30 years of prison.
It's more intensive because it's irreversible. Everyone has to be bloody sure.It's a similar argument used against life-time bans for doping in sport. If one shady test means a lifetime ban, people will fight it much harder, so the margin for errors become so narrow that conviction rates drop.
But the standard of proof remains the same regardless of the punishment so it shouldn't matter what the outcome is. If you are saying that there should be higher standards because of the outcome then the process is fundamentally flawed.
Perhaps my original repost should have been: all other things being equal capital punishment is cheaper than life imprisonment
If you're killing people just on the basis for 'beyond reasonable doubt' I'd be worried.
There needs to be a very significant element of certainty.
I read an article maybe 6 months ago where they worked out that they executed someone who probably didn't commit the crime.
I can't think of much worse for a peacetime state to do to their own people.0 -
I am not a supporter of the death penalty for whatever crime.
In the states, 87% of people on death row are black and poor. If you are rich, you are far more likely to get off with the crime or get the sentance reduced to life. That to me is not a judicial system that has any fairness to it whatsoever.
Those proponents of the death penalty are of the single loop 'cure' mindset. Same as those who want to find a gene for homosexuality or which is most likely to result in a person becoming criminal. Its an American mindset which does not want to even begin to start looking at the causes of criminaltiy from poverty to ghettoisation. They dare not start looking at those causes because they would start looking at the fundamental flaws in their society.
Single loop learning: fix the problem. Double loop learning: fix the underlying causes before tackling the problem.
If we were to execute the likes of Brejvik for example and with no apparent social reasons for his atrocity, do we undo the damage done? Do we suddenly move on because we have swept him under the carpet by relieving him of his life? Are we also giving him the easy option ?
To me, the death penalty is the mindset of the single loop society. the quick fix. Ultimately, considering the number of genocides in the US, the death penalty does not seem to deter them from carrying weapons or doing the crime.
1 innocent person loses their life as a result of the death penalty and the whole idea is then flawed, even if you get the other 99 right.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:
Absolutely you do.
However, I think it is disingenuous. Why should jury selection in a capital case be anymore intensive than the same case if it isn't a capital crime? If someone is appealing against conviction then the cost of that appeal would be the same whether or not it carries the death penalty or not. However, if someone is appealing against the sentence well...are we saying that person would not be appealing if they weren't going to lose their life? In which case it is the clemency issue.Finally a trial is a trial the prosecution presents its case and the defence rebutts it where does the capital punishment element affect this unless you say you are going to have degrees of murder.
If the judicial system follows the route of trial- appeal-sentence then if the latter is the death penalty then it has to be cheaper than 20-30 years of prison.
It's more intensive because it's irreversible. Everyone has to be bloody sure.It's a similar argument used against life-time bans for doping in sport. If one shady test means a lifetime ban, people will fight it much harder, so the margin for errors become so narrow that conviction rates drop.
But the standard of proof remains the same regardless of the punishment so it shouldn't matter what the outcome is. If you are saying that there should be higher standards because of the outcome then the process is fundamentally flawed.
Perhaps my original repost should have been: all other things being equal capital punishment is cheaper than life imprisonment
If you're killing people just on the basis for 'beyond reasonable doubt' I'd be worried.
There needs to be a very significant element of certainty.
I read an article maybe 6 months ago where they worked out that they executed someone who probably didn't commit the crime.
I can't think of much worse for a peacetime state to do to their own people.
Just think about that for a moment (and bear in mind I'm playing Devil's Advocate here) if you are worried about the standard of proof on the basis of the consequence of the sentence is it not the standard of proof that is at fault? Surely the standard of proof should be satisfactory regardless of the sentence? Are you happy to convict on that basis as long as it doesn't involve a loss of life? Surely not.
I have been involved in the law in various ways of the last 25 years or so. I'm married with two healthy young girls. I'm lucky enough never to have been a victim of a serious crime against the person in terms of me or my family and as a result have the luxury of being a libertarian.
However, if something were to happen to a member of my family, be they murdered, raped or seriously assaulted how would I feel then? I seriously don't know. Would my handle on the civilisation process of mankind remain, or would I want retribution? It's a difficult question to answer. To be able to say "I can't think of much worse for a peacetime state to do to their own people" is very much a privilege of someone who has not directly been a victim of such a crime.0 -
I'm not naive enough to think the state doesn't make mistakes.
As bad as incarcerating the wrong person in prison is, there's always that opportunity to realise your mistake and rectify it.
That's just not an option if you kill someone.
I just don't see the societal value in the state killing someone versus locking them up.0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:
I'm lucky enough never to have been a victim of a serious crime against the person in terms of me or my family and as a result have the luxury of being a libertarian.
/quote]
I'm with Winnie Johnson (RIP). The Brady's of this world should be put in a pit and burnt alive.0 -
The issue I have with the system is, the person on the right has yet to go to trial yet already the masses (due to his fizzog being plastered all over the press) have come to the conclusion he is guilty. Indeed the same could be said of the scumbag on the left.OffTheBackAdam wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is at what point will a judge say "sorry, we can't try this person as there is no way they'll get a fair trial;as unless you've lived in a cave in outer Mongolia you've had your opinion tainted."
I believe once a person has been charged there should be a media blackout if not on the case certainly on the accused.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
If the state were to execute an innocent person who should be executed for that crime?
Judge, jurers. executioner, home secretary, prime minister, monarch, WHO. 'Cos somebody has murdered an innocent on behalf of the state.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I'm not naive enough to think the state doesn't make mistakes.
As bad as incarcerating the wrong person in prison is, there's always that opportunity to realise your mistake and rectify it.
That's just not an option if you kill someone.
I just don't see the societal value in the state killing someone versus locking them up.
This depends upon what purpose you are attributing to the sentence. Is it about punishment of the offender or retribution for the victims or a mixture of both?
Should life imprisonment mean exactly that?0 -
Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I'm not naive enough to think the state doesn't make mistakes.
As bad as incarcerating the wrong person in prison is, there's always that opportunity to realise your mistake and rectify it.
That's just not an option if you kill someone.
I just don't see the societal value in the state killing someone versus locking them up.
This depends upon what purpose you are attributing to the sentence. Is it about punishment of the offender or retribution for the victims or a mixture of both?
Should life imprisonment mean exactly that?
It's really neither.
You put criminals in prison principally to remove them from society, to protect society from their anti-social behaviour.
That in turns gives you a secondary opportunity - to try and make them integrate better into society.
Now of course, that doesn't really matter if it's a life sentence, so we can ignore that for now.
If it was just about punishment, people would just hurt criminals, beat them up or whatever. It's obviously more than that.
Conveniently, being locked out of society and having severely limited freedom can also be seen as a type of punishment - that helps the victims of crime feel better.
Ultimately though, social policy, which this is, should take the holistic view and put the broader society's at the forefront of its objectives.
Even if you see punishment as absolutely key, which it isn't really, it's not especially difficult to say that death is less punishment than say, life imprisonment. It's no coincidence the state is keen on keeping lifers alive and preventing them killing themselves.0 -
I have reservations about the death penalty but I do believe it should be an option. If only in cases such as Hungerford and Dunblane for example where there was no question of doubt who the perpatrator was. The likes of Huntley, life should be life but should he wish to "top" himself while inside, that would be a shame I'm sure.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
OffTheBackAdam wrote:
Anyone care to disagree that this bit of scum shouldn't swing?
Yes, a fair number of the surviving victims of his attack and the families of those who died.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:I have reservations about the death penalty but I do believe it should be an option. If only in cases such as Hungerford and Dunblane for example where there was no question of doubt who the perpatrator was.
I'm even less convinced about the value of executing the Hungerford and Dunblane killers.0 -
johnfinch wrote:Frank the tank wrote:I have reservations about the death penalty but I do believe it should be an option. If only in cases such as Hungerford and Dunblane for example where there was no question of doubt who the perpatrator was.
I'm even less convinced about the value of executing the Hungerford and Dunblane killers.
I can understand that, they're already dead.
Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:johnfinch wrote:Frank the tank wrote:I have reservations about the death penalty but I do believe it should be an option. If only in cases such as Hungerford and Dunblane for example where there was no question of doubt who the perpatrator was.
I'm even less convinced about the value of executing the Hungerford and Dunblane killers.
I can understand that, they're already dead.
I was waiting to see if you'd spot the flaw in your plan. :P0 -
Pross wrote:Yes, a fair number of the surviving victims of his attack and the families of those who died.
Yes, I think a lot can be learned from Norway's measured response to this atrocity:
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/08/ ... ht-racism/
"But the sentence sums up the whole approach of Norway to a terrorist attack that may well have destabilized other nations. Others capitulate to terrorism by becoming more authoritarian, intolerant, repressive societies: their politicians pass laws clamping down on civil liberties. Would a British Prime Minister strike the same note of defiance of Jens Stoltenberg in the immediate aftermath of the horror?: “The Norwegian response to violence is more democracy, more openness and greater political participation.” Norway played the whole case by the book, imposing what is the maximum sentence under the country’s law. The message was clear: Breivik will not change us...Other than for crimes committed in war, Norway has not executed anyone since 1876. In the aftermath of the terrorist atrocity, just 16% of Norwegians polled supported the death penalty."0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I'm not naive enough to think the state doesn't make mistakes.
As bad as incarcerating the wrong person in prison is, there's always that opportunity to realise your mistake and rectify it.
That's just not an option if you kill someone.
I just don't see the societal value in the state killing someone versus locking them up.
This depends upon what purpose you are attributing to the sentence. Is it about punishment of the offender or retribution for the victims or a mixture of both?
should life imprisonment mean exactly that?
It's really neither.
You put criminals in prison principally to remove them from society, to protect society from their anti-social behaviour.
That in turns gives you a secondary opportunity - to try and make them integrate better into society.
Now of course, that doesn't really matter if it's a life sentence, so we can ignore that for now.
If it was just about punishment, people would just hurt criminals, beat them up or whatever. It's obviously more than that.
Conveniently, being locked out of society and having severely limited freedom can also be seen as a type of punishment - that helps the victims of crime feel better.
Ultimately though, social policy, which this is, should take the holistic view and put the broader society's at the forefront of its objectives.
Even if you see punishment as absolutely key, which it isn't really, it's not especially difficult to say that death is less punishment than say, life imprisonment. It's no coincidence the state is keen on keeping lifers alive and preventing them killing themselves.
For once the vast majority of what Judge Chasey says is correct and confers with the current Ministry of Justice model of Offender Management and Interventions.
Once sentenced and convicted it is the responsibility of the criminal justice system to reduce the risk of reoffending with targeted interventions.
Even in the case of a life sentence a Tariff will be set of a minimum period to be served in Prison before eligibility for Parole release under life licence.
The Offender has supposedly used the time of this sentence to participate in intervention programs to reduce their risk to the public and any further chance of offending.
The success of these programs is usually assessed by forensic psychologists , who in the whole in my experience havent got a clue, hence a recidivism rate at best of 27% of no further offending.
In their defence ( of forensic psychologists) after categorisation Offenders are given a sentence plan designed to progress them via intervention towards parole assessment.
As usual their human rights prevail, so the whole system gets rushed in order to prevent "Over Crowding" or prisoners claiming we haven't safe gaurded their right to effective sentence management. (A major KPT which any public prison not scoring highly on will probably find its service provision contested by the private sector)
Far more people have gone on to commit further offences including Murder on release from life sentences than have ever been wrongly executed.0 -
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Serious criminals are people too. Bless.Ecrasez l’infame0
-
tim wand wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I'm not naive enough to think the state doesn't make mistakes.
As bad as incarcerating the wrong person in prison is, there's always that opportunity to realise your mistake and rectify it.
That's just not an option if you kill someone.
I just don't see the societal value in the state killing someone versus locking them up.
This depends upon what purpose you are attributing to the sentence. Is it about punishment of the offender or retribution for the victims or a mixture of both?
should life imprisonment mean exactly that?
It's really neither.
You put criminals in prison principally to remove them from society, to protect society from their anti-social behaviour.
That in turns gives you a secondary opportunity - to try and make them integrate better into society.
Now of course, that doesn't really matter if it's a life sentence, so we can ignore that for now.
If it was just about punishment, people would just hurt criminals, beat them up or whatever. It's obviously more than that.
Conveniently, being locked out of society and having severely limited freedom can also be seen as a type of punishment - that helps the victims of crime feel better.
Ultimately though, social policy, which this is, should take the holistic view and put the broader society's at the forefront of its objectives.
Even if you see punishment as absolutely key, which it isn't really, it's not especially difficult to say that death is less punishment than say, life imprisonment. It's no coincidence the state is keen on keeping lifers alive and preventing them killing themselves.
For once the vast majority of what Judge Chasey says is correct and confers with the current Ministry of Justice model of Offender Management and Interventions.
Once sentenced and convicted it is the responsibility of the criminal justice system to reduce the risk of reoffending with targeted interventions.
Even in the case of a life sentence a Tariff will be set of a minimum period to be served in Prison before eligibility for Parole release under life licence.
The Offender has supposedly used the time of this sentence to participate in intervention programs to reduce their risk to the public and any further chance of offending.
The success of these programs is usually assessed by forensic psychologists , who in the whole in my experience havent got a clue, hence a recidivism rate at best of 27% of no further offending.
In their defence ( of forensic psychologists) after categorisation Offenders are given a sentence plan designed to progress them via intervention towards parole assessment.
As usual their human rights prevail, so the whole system gets rushed in order to prevent "Over Crowding" or prisoners claiming we haven't safe gaurded their right to effective sentence management. (A major KPT which any public prison not scoring highly on will probably find its service provision contested by the private sector)
Far more people have gone on to commit further offences including Murder on release from life sentences than have ever been wrongly executed.
I didn't say anything about being released for life sentences.0 -
Ric I was merely stating that what you had put down as the official line of the purpose and role of a custodial sentence was correct.
I.E firstly remove those who are a danger to society from society.
Secondly during that removal target them with interventions which reduce their risk to society or lower their risk of reoffending.
Didnt mean that you were an advocate of releasing life sentenced prisoners (Surely no Mod would preach forgiveness and rehabilitation for former sins)
0
