A person kills your child..,

Fingers657

Death by hanging  Its time it was brought back in the UK if proven 100% .
Far to many evil people cluttering up British prisons costing the tax payer millions.

fretmeister

My own child - I would want to slowly torture that person to death.

And that is why, in the event it happened, I should not be allowed anywhere near the decision making process.

_____________________________

Most people in favour of the death penalty assume that those against are against it for moral reasons and in many cases that is certainly an issue.

However, far more importantly, it is the practical reasons too.

The Court of Appeal exists because of errors in the Justice system. Now while the media loves to concentrate on stories of bent coppers, bought off or threatened juries, bribed judges, dodgy witnesses all of that happens so infrequently that statistically it's not worth thinking about.

The main risk to justice in every single case is simple human error. From the account of a witness not describing something accurately (there is a maxim of "nothing so useless as an eye witness"), to a policeman not understanding or noting down something properly, to SOCO not being careful enough with the chain of custody of evidence, to the prosecutor not disclosing all documents properly, to a legal aid / public defender only being given 2 days notice to read 25,000 documents, to a translator not quite translating evidence from a witness to a jury in precisely the way the witness intended etc etc etc.

99.9% of successful appeals are because of simple human error.

Until such time as error can be completely removed from the system there must never be a penalty that cannot be reversed.

And, No. There is no such thing as zero doubt about a conviction. Doesn't exist, no matter what Hollywood would have us believe.

Petepassion

For those that would like to see the Murderer punished, supposing it was discovered the murderer had a brain tumour which had been putting pressure on a certain part of the brain, and this being the cause of their vile actions. Before the tumour the person was a well balanced individual.
    An operation to remove the tumour would cure the person of their disability.
Should the person still be punished? Or should the person be cured and free of guilt..

EricTheWeary

Once upon a time I wrote a court report on a man convicted of raping his step daughter. Rather unintentionally I ended up meeting his wife, her mother. I thought she might be full of righteous anger but she minimised the offence and blamed her daughter which objectively was nonsense but it was her coping mechanism. Living a lie because the truth was unbearable. 
There are so many filters and variables that these things become unknowable, what we say we might do and what we would do don't necessarily bear any resemblance. 
We also don't get grieving people to pass sentence or make laws; knee jerk laws are the often badly thought through (the Tory's Rwanda bill comes to mind). Not hard to imagine a Respect or even a Tory party trying to bring back capital punishment as a political crowd pleaser but that's all it would be. Even if you believe in a life for a life (an idea which could take us down a road of weird equivalencies) the logistics of capital punishment are highly problematic to the point where it's unworkable.

fretmeister

Generally speaking (plenty of studies - go find them) people who are happy for un-rectifiable punishments to exist even when the system is riddled with human error are almost always the people who have never been falsely accused of anything in their lives.

They are also almost always the people who refuse to accept that the re-offending rate for any type of criminal is far lower when proper funding is given to rehabilitation.

They also refuse to accept the findings of multiple studies that show the death penalty is NOT a deterrent of any kind, and in fact when it is introduced for non-homicide offences such as kidnap, child rape etc the murder rate goes UP because the offender takes a view that having 1 fewer witness is always better.

Petepassion

What do you make of this?
An old, short documentary about a little girl who tried to kill those around her, such as beating her little brothers head on the concrete floor.
Is she 'evil'? 
Should she have been punished?
What would have happened if these sadistic tendencies were not discovered at an early age? 
https://youtu.be/2YhxerkkHUs?si=Dhp-0TfKxG_rBZYA

Or to save time here is a brief overview...
https://youtu.be/nLpe3XCLar0?si=ovUntJdwNv71CCPt

fretmeister

Petepassion said:

Ok, so I’ll elaborate a bit.
sparked by a comment today on the forum about “how would you feel?”, regarding the murder of one of your loved ones.
   I’m making some of this up as I go along, so let’s see where it takes us…
   Serial killer killed three victims over the past year, your child(but could be any loved one) was the last victim, what would you want to see happen to the killer?

Arrested. Given proper due process in a properly funded criminal justice system - and that means both prosecution and defence, because it is the defence that forces the state to present proper evidence to be tested. The defence isn't there to "get them off", the defence is there to test the evidence and minimise the risk that the wrong person has been convicted.

To be put on trial for a jury to decide. Then in the event of a guilty verdict for the judge to then apply the government drafted sentencing guidelines and set the proper sentence.

All without the influence of the understandably emotionally compromised families of the victims.

___________________________________

Now - we have a thing called Victim Impact Statements where the victim or family of the victim can present a statement to be read out in court.

These are of huge benefit to the psychological health of the victim and that cannot be over stated. But they do not and must not ever influence the decisions of the judge. Otherwise more eloquent victims will cause disproportionately harsh sentences and less eloquent victims or those who decide to not provide a statement will cause unduly lenient sentences.

fretmeister

Fingers657 said:

Death by hanging  Its time it was brought back in the UK if proven 100% .
Far to many evil people cluttering up British prisons costing the tax payer millions.

No such thing as 100%. Never happened in the history of laws being broken.

EDIT: There's about 80-85,000 prisoners in the UK. Roughly 1400-1500 murderers. Under 2%.

It wouldn't save any money at all.

Petepassion

fretmeister said:

Petepassion said:

Ok, so I’ll elaborate a bit.
sparked by a comment today on the forum about “how would you feel?”, regarding the murder of one of your loved ones.
   I’m making some of this up as I go along, so let’s see where it takes us…
   Serial killer killed three victims over the past year, your child(but could be any loved one) was the last victim, what would you want to see happen to the killer?

Arrested. Given proper due process in a properly funded criminal justice system - and that means both prosecution and defence, because it is the defence that forces the state to present proper evidence to be tested. The defence isn't there to "get them off", the defence is there to test the evidence and minimise the risk that the wrong person has been convicted.

To be put on trial for a jury to decide. Then in the event of a guilty verdict for the judge to then apply the government drafted sentencing guidelines and set the proper sentence.

All without the influence of the understandably emotionally compromised families of the victims.

___________________________________

Now - we have a thing called Victim Impact Statements where the victim or family of the victim can present a statement to be read out in court.

These are of huge benefit to the psychological health of the victim and that cannot be over stated. But they do not and must not ever influence the decisions of the judge. Otherwise more eloquent victims will cause disproportionately harsh sentences and less eloquent victims or those who decide to not provide a statement will cause unduly lenient sentences.

Do you think 'Guilty' is a bit lazy? 
I'm not religious so I don't believe people are born inherently 'evil'.
Does the level of 'justice' seen in a court sometimes ironically depend on how much you can afford?
Maybe if we could walk in the accused shoes, their whole life journey...how many times could we their actions were simply a reaction to what they were exposed to? And would they be to blame? Guilty?

RiftAmps

Ah, one of my favourite subjects...not for the gore but because the bureaucracy of Capital Punishment fascinates me.

For context, my brother works in the Prison system, and my partner works as a Psychotherapist and ISVA in Rape Crisis.

Western society is built on the principles of Freedom and Liberty, and it is exactly those two things that must be surrendered by a party convicted of the most heinous crimes. Imprisonment fulfils that obligation, without question.

Capital Punishment fails to work either as a deterrent or as a cheaper means of punishment, not to mention the systemic racial bias and hypocrisy. Read the facts at https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ for some incredible, and often sobering insights into the world of execution.

Some US convicts have opted for Execution over Life Imprisonment (see Steven Lorenzo), or have even committed suicide on Death Row to avoid spending longer in prison (see Scott Dozier).


To answer the OP, If a family member was Murdered, as opposed to Manslaughter/DBDD/any lesser crime, I would ask the Judge to consider a whole life sentence without parole.

Petepassion

RiftAmps said:

Ah, one of my favourite subjects...not for the gore but because the bureaucracy of Capital Punishment fascinates me.

For context, my brother works in the Prison system, and my partner works as a Psychotherapist and ISVA in Rape Crisis.

Western society is built on the principles of Freedom and Liberty, and it is exactly those two things that must be surrendered by a party convicted of the most heinous crimes. Imprisonment fulfils that obligation, without question.

Capital Punishment fails to work either as a deterrent or as a cheaper means of punishment, not to mention the systemic racial bias and hypocrisy. Read the facts at https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ for some incredible, and often sobering insights into the world of execution.

Some US convicts have opted for Execution over Life Imprisonment (see Steven Lorenzo), or have even committed suicide on Death Row to avoid spending longer in prison (see Scott Dozier).


To answer the OP, If a family member was Murdered, as opposed to Manslaughter/DBDD/any lesser crime, I would ask the Judge to consider a whole life sentence without parole.

So going back to my previous post...
'For those that would like to see the Murderer punished, supposing it was discovered the murderer had a brain tumour which had been putting pressure on a certain part of the brain, and this being the cause of their vile actions. Before the tumour the person was a well balanced individual.
    An operation to remove the tumour would cure the person of their disability.
Should the person still be punished? Or should the person be cured and free of guilt..'

Petepassion

It genuinely wasn't my intention to debate Capital punishment in particular, but seeing as it's been brought up...
For those in favour of a death sentence, what would you want?

The accused to be permanently put to sleep, quickly, painlessly and behind closed doors?
Something a little more barbaric?
Or the full monty? Such as the electric chair, a hanging or guillotine in a public place for all to see...obviously adults only(I would hope)?

goldtop

Petepassion said:

   Serial killer killed three victims over the past year, your child(but could be any loved one) was the last victim, what would you want to see happen to the killer?

These fantasies of yours are getting weirder. Are you typing them in with one-hand?

RiftAmps

Petepassion said:

So going back to my previous post...
'For those that would like to see the Murderer punished, supposing it was discovered the murderer had a brain tumour which had been putting pressure on a certain part of the brain, and this being the cause of their vile actions. Before the tumour the person was a well balanced individual.
    An operation to remove the tumour would cure the person of their disability.
Should the person still be punished? Or should the person be cured and free of guilt..'

If you're referencing Charles Whitman, that case highlights how difficult it is to answer your question without further context. One at which I am neither capable nor qualified to answer.

Petepassion

goldtop said:

Petepassion said:

   Serial killer killed three victims over the past year, your child(but could be any loved one) was the last victim, what would you want to see happen to the killer?

These fantasies of yours are getting weirder. Are you typing them in with one-hand?

It's a very relevant philosophical question.

fretmeister

Petepassion said:

For those that would like to see the Murderer punished, supposing it was discovered the murderer had a brain tumour which had been putting pressure on a certain part of the brain, and this being the cause of their vile actions. Before the tumour the person was a well balanced individual.
    An operation to remove the tumour would cure the person of their disability.
Should the person still be punished? Or should the person be cured and free of guilt..

If the offence was carried out while they had a brain impairment AND that impairment was the sole cause of the offence then they are not guilty. Plenty of case law on that very point.

However - there is still an option for a Hospital Order where a person, who remains a risk to others, gets accommodated in a secure unit until such time as treatment ends the risk. It might be for the person's entire life.

In this example given, if surgery can remove the tumour and the risk to others can be shown to have gone then they would be released.

Still no penalty - they had no control when the action was carried out. A later cure does not change that.

The issue - and the main one the public seems to struggle with - is believing those sorts of circumstances. Plenty of people in the pub still think they know more than Consultant Neurologists about brain function.

If you recall R -v- Valdo Calocane last year, the man pleaded NG to murder but G to manslaughter due to mental health issues. The CPS went for the manslaughter and he was placed into a secure unit forever.

The press went apeshit about it. 

In this sort of case it is usual practice to have 2 Consultant medical experts provide court reports independently. Far less chance of fooling 2 experts. But in this case. and due to the public interest the court ordered double the amount.

The press did not mention that ALL of the experts agreed on the diagnosis. 

The family were upset with the CPS for accepting the G plea for manslaughter and not seeking a murder conviction. That is understandable but it comes from a position of ignorance (not used in an insulting way at all). The CPS has a duty to only prosecute when it is in the public interest to do so and where a conviction is likely.

With 4 independent experts all agreeing the likelihood of a murder conviction was very low, and even if a jury did give a verdict of guilty for murder there would be an exceoptionally high chance of the Court of Appeal ruling that as unsafe and ordering a retrial and making everyone go through it all again - or - because of the guilty plea, stick to the manslaughter admission.

Even in the event of a murder conviction it is possible to seek a hospital order instead of prison.

Ultimately the destination of the defendant was the same - a secure unit. The Press did their best to claim that a secure unit was not punishment. They have clearly never visited a secure unit.

________________

This case was yet another reason why Civics and Basic Law MUST become part of the National Curriculum.

Understanding the rules that apply to us all is vital, as is the process by which decisions are made under them. It would prevent the press telling lies about it for a start, and might just stop Barry in the pub from claiming there are 100% proof cases, and that he knows more than medical or ballistics experts etc etc. He can go back to being a flat earther instead. 

Petepassion

RiftAmps said:

Petepassion said:

So going back to my previous post...
'For those that would like to see the Murderer punished, supposing it was discovered the murderer had a brain tumour which had been putting pressure on a certain part of the brain, and this being the cause of their vile actions. Before the tumour the person was a well balanced individual.
    An operation to remove the tumour would cure the person of their disability.
Should the person still be punished? Or should the person be cured and free of guilt..'

If you're referencing Charles Whitman, that case highlights how difficult it is to answer your question without further context. One at which I am neither capable nor qualified to answer.

It's a question I was asked a few years back, never heard of Charles Whitman, thanks for the reference, I'll check him out later.
But it's basically a philosophical question, not sure what further context you would require? The person was fine, became ill leading them to commit crimes purely due to the effects of the illness...cure or punish?

fretmeister

Petepassion said:

It genuinely wasn't my intention to debate Capital punishment in particular, but seeing as it's been brought up...
For those in favour of a death sentence, what would you want?

The accused to be permanently put to sleep, quickly, painlessly and behind closed doors?
Something a little more barbaric?
Or the full monty? Such as the electric chair, a hanging or guillotine in a public place for all to see...obviously adults only(I would hope)?

I am not in favour but if a family member was killed I would be absolutely horrified if the wrong person was executed. 

It's not just a miscarriage of justice - it would be a murder in itself and should be treated as such.

To minimise that risk if the DP was bought back then in the event that a person was wrongfully executed then I would want the jury members who found him guilty to be executed along with the judge who decided on that sentence.

The jury members and judge's assets would also be given directly to the family of the wrongfully executed person.

If anyone disagrees with that idea then you automatically accept there is no such thing as 100% proof.

_____________________

We must never forget that every prosecution and every sentence of every kind is set on behalf of us all.

It's not some notional thing because a person lives in Cornwall and the offence and trial was in Liverpool. It's on our behalf and if WE wrongfully execute someone then WE have to pay.

The jury are the representatives of the public in a trial - "a jury of your peers" - and there must be responsibility in any case where a punishment cannot be rectified later.

fretmeister

@Petepassion ;

If you don't give me at least 40% credit in the assignment you are obviously doing then I will be telling your teachers.

beed84

I don't have kids, either. However, if I did, it's not something I would want to think about.