Woolwich stabbing/machete attack

[For Us All]

Indeed..surely there defence cannot be '"It wasn't me"? has to be "this wasn't murder it was a war killing" or a mentally impaired defence or "I don't recognise this court" sort of thing

 

I'm sure it will along the lines of a war killing and 'an eye for an eye'.

[Andyregs]

I'm sure it will along the lines of a war killing and 'an eye for an eye'.

 

It's more a political statement rather than an expectation of being found not guilty.

[Paul6754]

That doesn't answer my question..would you be prepared to see them wrongly convicted and executed (it's always the law abiding who are wrongly convicted so that's no defence) so that we can have the option to execute the guilty?

 

Are you prepared to see innocents killed so that we can execute the guilty?

 

Why do you so confidently think that "innocents will be killed so that we can execute the guilty" (your words not mine) in the future. Has it been definitively proved it has happened in the past in the UK.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Why do you so confidently think that "innocents will be killed so that we can execute the guilty" (your words not mine) in the future. Has it been definitively proved it has happened in the past in the UK.

 

Well I didn't say it would happen I asked if you would be "prepared to see innocents killed so that we can execute the guilty". I didn't post that innocents will be killed; asking if you see the killing of innocents as a price that bwould be worth paying to be able to execute the guilty.

 

You said yourself that the chances are not zero; I want to make the chances zero by not having the death penalty

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Has it been definitively proved it has happened in the past in the UK.

 

In the UK, reviews prompted by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have resulted in one pardon and three exonerations for people executed between 1950 and 1953 (when the execution rate in England and Wales averaged 17 per year), with compensation being paid.

 

I totally accept that this was some years ago and science etc has moved on considerably..but it has happened. I'm sure it's a great compensation to their families that those who were guilty were also executed

[Andyregs]

Why do you so confidently think that "innocents will be killed so that we can execute the guilty" (your words not mine) in the future. Has it been definitively proved it has happened in the past in the UK.

 

Its been so long since we had the death penalty, but I'm sure there has been. What I do know is that there have been countless murder convictions quashed in recent history. Is it possible these miscarriages of justice were able to be dealt with because those people were in prison. It's a bit late if people are executed, and people stop fighting for their conviction to the quashed once they are dead. On the other hand, this is why the legal process for the death penalty is long and expensive. With people being on death row for years and costing huge amounts in the process. You make some fair argument in places,but each one seems to sit on it's own and ignores the bigger picture. I can't see how you can on one hand claim that cost is a flimsy argument but also claim that innocents won't be killed. If you don't want the latter, then the costs will inevitably be large. Perhaps when trying to balance the two out, the moral argument tilts the balance one way.

[Paul6754]

In the UK, reviews prompted by the Criminal Cases Review Commission have resulted in one pardon and three exonerations for people executed between 1950 and 1953 (when the execution rate in England and Wales averaged 17 per year), with compensation being paid.

 

I totally accept that this was some years ago and science etc has moved on considerably..but it has happened. I'm sure it's a great compensation to their families that those who were guilty were also executed

 

So what were the names of the people and what was the evidence based on that their convictions were pardoned/exonerated. If the evidence was so strong why were all 3 not pardoned. Give a reference.

[Paul6754]

Its been so long since we had the death penalty, but I'm sure there has been. What I do know is that there have been countless murder convictions quashed in recent history. Is it possible these miscarriages of justice were able to be dealt with because those people were in prison. It's a bit late if people are executed, and people stop fighting for their conviction to the quashed once they are dead. On the other hand, this is why the legal process for the death penalty is long and expensive. With people being on death row for years and costing huge amounts in the process. You make some fair argument in places,but each one seems to sit on it's own and ignores the bigger picture. I can't see how you can on one hand claim that cost is a flimsy argument but also claim that innocents won't be killed. If you don't want the latter, then the costs will inevitably be large. Perhaps when trying to balance the two out, the moral argument tilts the balance one way.

 

Hence the DP should be available as an option.....as in the case of this Woolwich incident.

 

The moral argument depends on your morals, it would be more humane to do away with these two reprobates.

[Andyregs]

Hence the DP should be available as an option.....as in the case of this Woolwich incident.

 

The moral argument depends on your morals, it would be more humane to do away with these two reprobates.

 

But that doesn't answer the issue I raised. The cost would still be there. Is killing them a punishment? Revenge? Image it depends on your morals, but there is a moral debate to be had.

[Paul6754]

But that doesn't answer the issue I raised. The cost would still be there. Is killing them a punishment? Revenge? Image it depends on your morals, but there is a moral debate to be had.

 

What costs are you talking about, financial, cost to society etc., many murderers released in the UK go on to kill again (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227).

 

Punishment and a future deterrent to some.

 

It does depend on your own personal morals.

[Andyregs]

What costs are you talking about, financial, cost to society etc., many murderers released in the UK go on to kill again (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227).

 

Punishment and a future deterrent to some.

 

It does depend on your own personal morals.

 

Financial. But the others are valid too.

Again, I'm not advocating that those people should have been released. And as you only advocate the death penalty as an option, and not all murder cases, it's likely many of those wouldn't have been executed anyway if they were eventually released.