A person kills your child..,

fretmeister

Kurtis said:

fretmeister said:

Kurtis said:

fretmeister said:

Kurtis said:

fretmeister said:

The existence of unavoidable human error in the system is enough for even the most cold blooded logical Vulcan to see it's a crap idea.

What about when the evidence is irrefutable? The perpetrator has admitted it and shows no remorse?

How many times do I have to say this.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE.

The entire system is based on doubt!

____________

And if a person admits it - they get credit and a lesser sentence.

Technically it could be a situation where it could have only been one person. Especially when it's a serial killer. 

To be even close to being irrefutable there would have to be zero errors of any kind in the entire process. Right from the very first report of a crime to the end of the trial.

Such a thing involves dozens of different human beings over several years. Different interpretations of regulations. Different ways of writing notes from an interview. Even something as simple as different personal hygiene standards that might affect DNA collection. Or someone having a bit of an off day. Or the maker of the SOCO gloves providing a bad batch. The Fridge at the DNA store being .5C off. And all this is without considering a juror who just doesn't like the look of the accused.

Evidence in itself is nothing. It is the interpretation of that evidence that is the important thing. Evidence is handled and interpreted by humans and humans make mistakes every single day.

For evidence to be irrefutable, humans first need to be infallible.

So Richard ramirez was maybe innocent?!

How do you get a "lesser" death sentence? 

You're a smart person. You know you cannot build a system that applies to all based on a small sample size.

You don't. You get life, with a whole life tariff instead.

Petepassion

Offset said:

Petepassion said:

Offset said:

I think the two creatures who murdered Lee Rigby are perfect examples of individuals who do not deserve to draw breath.  It sticks in my craw to think that my taxes are being used to feed the bastards.

I still couldn't condone the death penalty however, no matter how strongly I feel.  All you can hope for is that they both succumb to extremely unpleasant illnesses and die after a lengthy period of suffering so the cost of incarcerating them can go to worthy causes.

Do you remember what the killer said to the camera after killing Lee Rigby?
And no, it is not justification by any means.

I don't, but if I had to hazard a guess it would have something to do with martyrdom...

I can't remember exactly, but it was along the lines of..."Get your government out of our country".
Now if he had shouted "death to all infidels" you can guarantee the media would have printed it across the front page, but the media don't want to shout too much about our foreign affairs.
My point being we can write these people off as nut jobs or look at the cause. So I guess it was a political statement/attack, hence why he focused on a military man. 
I'm in no way defending his actions, but our antics abroad are not always squeaky clean, and yes, we carry out a lot of good deeds abroad, but there will always be a reason, to protect or benefit our Western 'economy' shall we say.

Offset

Petepassion said:

Offset said:

Petepassion said:

Offset said:

I think the two creatures who murdered Lee Rigby are perfect examples of individuals who do not deserve to draw breath.  It sticks in my craw to think that my taxes are being used to feed the bastards.

I still couldn't condone the death penalty however, no matter how strongly I feel.  All you can hope for is that they both succumb to extremely unpleasant illnesses and die after a lengthy period of suffering so the cost of incarcerating them can go to worthy causes.

Do you remember what the killer said to the camera after killing Lee Rigby?
And no, it is not justification by any means.

I don't, but if I had to hazard a guess it would have something to do with martyrdom...

I can't remember exactly, but it was along the lines of..."Get your government out of our country".

"Our country" being... which country exactly?  They are British (of Nigerian descent) and converts to Islam.

Petepassion

Offset said:

Petepassion said:

Offset said:

Petepassion said:

Offset said:

I think the two creatures who murdered Lee Rigby are perfect examples of individuals who do not deserve to draw breath.  It sticks in my craw to think that my taxes are being used to feed the bastards.

I still couldn't condone the death penalty however, no matter how strongly I feel.  All you can hope for is that they both succumb to extremely unpleasant illnesses and die after a lengthy period of suffering so the cost of incarcerating them can go to worthy causes.

Do you remember what the killer said to the camera after killing Lee Rigby?
And no, it is not justification by any means.

I don't, but if I had to hazard a guess it would have something to do with martyrdom...

I can't remember exactly, but it was along the lines of..."Get your government out of our country".

"Our country" being... which country exactly?  They are British (of Nigerian descent) and converts to Islam.

I would assume Nigeria

Kurtis

fretmeister said:

Kurtis said:

fretmeister said:

Kurtis said:

fretmeister said:

Kurtis said:

fretmeister said:

The existence of unavoidable human error in the system is enough for even the most cold blooded logical Vulcan to see it's a crap idea.

What about when the evidence is irrefutable? The perpetrator has admitted it and shows no remorse?

How many times do I have to say this.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE.

The entire system is based on doubt!

____________

And if a person admits it - they get credit and a lesser sentence.

Technically it could be a situation where it could have only been one person. Especially when it's a serial killer. 

To be even close to being irrefutable there would have to be zero errors of any kind in the entire process. Right from the very first report of a crime to the end of the trial.

Such a thing involves dozens of different human beings over several years. Different interpretations of regulations. Different ways of writing notes from an interview. Even something as simple as different personal hygiene standards that might affect DNA collection. Or someone having a bit of an off day. Or the maker of the SOCO gloves providing a bad batch. The Fridge at the DNA store being .5C off. And all this is without considering a juror who just doesn't like the look of the accused.

Evidence in itself is nothing. It is the interpretation of that evidence that is the important thing. Evidence is handled and interpreted by humans and humans make mistakes every single day.

For evidence to be irrefutable, humans first need to be infallible.

So Richard ramirez was maybe innocent?!

How do you get a "lesser" death sentence? 

You're a smart person. You know you cannot build a system that applies to all based on a small sample size.

You don't. You get life, with a whole life tariff instead.

Who's saying you can?

It's a hypothetical question.


I'd imagine that would depend entirely on the situation. Admitting guilt is certainly no guarantee you'd get life, with a whole life tariff instead. 

Sporky

Kurtis said:

Sporky said:

I'd put on a cape and goggles and rampage through the glass cities of Neptune. 

Different to your usual cape and goggles you mean?

Yeah. More purple for work on Neptune, and slightly thicker goggles because of all the broken glass. 

Offset

Petepassion said:

"Our country" being... which country exactly?  They are British (of Nigerian descent) and converts to Islam.

I would assume Nigeria

"The man said he was responsible for killing the man on the ground – a British soldier who the attacker claimed had "killed Muslims in Iraq and in Afghanistan""

No comment.

Petepassion

Offset said:

Petepassion said:

"Our country" being... which country exactly?  They are British (of Nigerian descent) and converts to Islam.

I would assume Nigeria

"The man said he was responsible for killing the man on the ground – a British soldier who the attacker claimed had "killed Muslims in Iraq and in Afghanistan""

No comment.

I just watched the clip, he says "people will never be safe, remove your government, they don't care about you".
OK, so this is a bit ambiguous, but sounds more political than religious.
   So once again, I'm not in any way supporting them or justifying the brutal murder they have committed, but there will be a back story to this, a back story we may never know.
   So I guess my point here is to understand the path of causality that leads us to the point of violent, abhorrent acts. This way we are better equipped to avoid them in the future. And to understand the cause and effect is in no way giving anyone a free pardon, but we do have to be honest with ourselves and when it comes to our own government and shady goings on this will not always be easy for some.

Haych

Interesting if rather morbid topic.  I probably shouldn't wade into this one, but light the blue touch paper and run away........

To answer the questions posed, I don't know.  I wouldn't feel particularly charitable towards the person responsible for the deliberate death, or even accidental death, of my child.  How I would respond I cannot know, and I hope never to know.

Now the follow on question about a neurological or physiological condition being responsible for the behaviour of the killer seems slightly flawed to me.  Firstly, even if it can be proved that said condition/tumour/whatever was the cause of the behaviour of the individual who took the life of my offspring, I'm still unlikely to feel any different about them because of that.

Secondly, and most importantly, Fretmeister has been banging on (not a dig, just a poor choice of words on my part) that the whole legal system is based on doubt and there is no such thing as a 100% certainty of guilt.

So, using the same logic, how will you ever know for 100% certainty that the condition from which the killer was suffering at the time of the murder is absolutely the only reason they committed the crime?  How do you prove the negative?  Even if an expert witness stated that the tumour brought about a rapid and uncontrollable change in behaviour and was responsible for the killer having killed, you cannot know for an absolute certainty that the killer would not have committed murder even if they were not afflicted with that tumour.

Furthermore, if they were cured after the fact you would still not know whether they still might have any malicious or murderous intent.  Even if you were confident they didn't you could not prove, as unlikely as it might be, that deep inside they weren't turned on by the fact that they'd deliberately taken another person's life.

Adey

Re the original post - is this your own child, one of your children that you actually quite like, or your ginger haired step son?

Some clarification is clearly needed

Petepassion

Adey said:

Re the original post - is this your own child, one of your children that you actually quite like, or your ginger haired step son?

Some clarification is clearly needed

The question is in no way related to my own life experiences, purely philosophical to break down the emotional and rational responses and what could be the best way to deal with them, personally and also for the collective.
It's also about blame, retribution, clouded judgement. No agenda other than to think a little and get past the gutter press narratives we are fed.

Petepassion

Haych said:

Interesting if rather morbid topic.  I probably shouldn't wade into this one, but light the blue touch paper and run away........

To answer the questions posed, I don't know.  I wouldn't feel particularly charitable towards the person responsible for the deliberate death, or even accidental death, of my child.  How I would respond I cannot know, and I hope never to know.

Now the follow on question about a neurological or physiological condition being responsible for the behaviour of the killer seems slightly flawed to me.  Firstly, even if it can be proved that said condition/tumour/whatever was the cause of the behaviour of the individual who took the life of my offspring, I'm still unlikely to feel any different about them because of that.

Secondly, and most importantly, Fretmeister has been banging on (not a dig, just a poor choice of words on my part) that the whole legal system is based on doubt and there is no such thing as a 100% certainty of guilt.

So, using the same logic, how will you ever know for 100% certainty that the condition from which the killer was suffering at the time of the murder is absolutely the only reason they committed the crime?  How do you prove the negative?  Even if an expert witness stated that the tumour brought about a rapid and uncontrollable change in behaviour and was responsible for the killer having killed, you cannot know for an absolute certainty that the killer would not have committed murder even if they were not afflicted with that tumour.

Furthermore, if they were cured after the fact you would still not know whether they still might have any malicious or murderous intent.  Even if you were confident they didn't you could not prove, as unlikely as it might be, that deep inside they weren't turned on by the fact that they'd deliberately taken another person's life.

Fair point, but bearing in mind it is purely a philosophical question, assume the person only committed the crimes due to the illness and can be healed with no after effects...then what?

fretmeister

Haych said:

I

Secondly, and most importantly, Fretmeister has been banging on (not a dig, just a poor choice of words on my part) that the whole legal system is based on doubt and there is no such thing as a100% certainty of guilt.

1: So, using the same logic, how will you ever know for 100% certainty that the condition from which the killer was suffering at the time of the murder is absolutely the only reason they committed the crime?  How do you prove the negative?  Even if an expert witness stated that the tumour brought about a rapid and uncontrollable change in behaviour and was responsible for the killer having killed, you cannot know for an absolute certainty that the killer would not have committed murder even if they were not afflicted with that tumour.

2: Furthermore, if they were cured after the fact you would still not know whether they still might have any malicious or murderous intent.  Even if you were confident they didn't you could not prove, as unlikely as it might be, that deep inside they weren't turned on by the fact that they'd deliberately taken another person's life.

added some numbers to your post

1: That's a perfectly fair question to ask.

It all comes down to what is known as Blackstone's Ratio - "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

As a society we have decided that locking up an innocent person is one of the greatest of all crimes and as a result the issue of doubt is resolved in favour of the accused. Always. 

This is why if a very unique looking person murders someone in front of competent witnesses, and CCTV, and is also seen cutting himself to purposely bleed all over the victim, and pulls out his own hair to dump some extra epithelials on the body, and is actually detained at the scene having never left the body, in the absence of a guilty plea we still insist that the Crown proves each of the 6 required elements of the crime of murder to the appropriate standard of Beyond Reasonable Doubt. If they fail on just one of the 6, then it wasn't murder. Might still be manslaughter, but it would not be murder.

The CPS guidelines are here: Homicide: Murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing or allowing the death or serious injury of a child or vulnerable adult | The Crown Prosecution Service (cps.gov.uk) 



2: If they committed the act while sick and are now cured then they are in exactly the same spot as any of us. I don't know if you have any murderous intent about me or anyone else. You are cured, so you are just like me: the default position. Innocent until proven guilty. 

As for whether they were "turned on" by it after being cured - that's not a crime, it's a thought. Having fantasies about a crime is not an offence and would be impossible to police. Some people have rape fantasies - as either perpetrator or as a victim, Some people think about murder, etc etc. Not a crime until the point that the person starts to actually prepare to commit the offence. If you start sketching the plans needed to blow up a car AND you have the intent to want to blow up the car then you've gone a bit far, but if you've "just" imagined it and got a boner about it, or drawn the plans for use in a screenplay then that's not any type of crime. 

Some types of porn are illegal to watch, But it is not illegal to close your eyes and imagine, thus "watching" it in your own head.

But it goes further than that. As distasteful as it is, it is perfectly legal for a member of the general public to spot someone drowning and decide to open a beer and enjoy watching it.

Unless that person is in the emergency services or perhaps a teacher in loco parentis for a child in the river, there is no duty to assist. Thoughts cannot be policed, and nor should they be, so if someone wants to be a voyeur for that, they can. If the voyeur was actively expressing their enjoyment (eg cheering etc) then that probably would be a public order offence, but if they are just sitting on a bench and watching - nope.

In brain fantasies of all depravities are not against the law. Acting on them might be, depending on what it is.

99.9% of all people who enjoy darker fantasies would never ever consider actually carrying them out - not even the ones who end up writing murder mystery books and making a fortune. So again the default applies. Until they start to take steps to commit an offence there is no offence and they are no different to you or me. 

I'm not qualified to decide if I should be worried about such a person who did something while suffering from a medical problem that directly caused the violent act but is now cured. That's why the judges defer to the consultant psychologists and psychiatrists, and it's also why you always need more than 1 of the expert when it comes to releasing someone who used to be a risk, and there is a careful procedure to follow for doing so.

Of course it's not a perfect system and it cannot ever be because humans are in charge of it.

Haych

I wasn’t looking at it from the angle of thought crime, more the thought that the condition could be decided as the basis for the cause of their action, but in reality there is something very disturbed in them that wanted to commit the crime despite the presence of the tumour that was decided as the cause of their behaviour. 

So despite being cured the individual may have also desired to do the act in any case. 

I suppose I’ve cancelled out my own argument there. 

Thank you, though, @fretmeister for your informed input. 

fretmeister

Haych said:

I wasn’t looking at it from the angle of thought crime, more the thought that the condition could be decided as the basis for the cause of their action, but in reality there is something very disturbed in them that wanted to commit the crime despite the presence of the tumour that was decided as the cause of their behaviour. 

So despite being cured the individual may have also desired to do the act in any case. 

I suppose I’ve cancelled out my own argument there. 

Thank you, though, @fretmeister for your informed input. 

Neuroscience is really still in its infancy.

Have to do the best with what we've got, and that involves giving more weight to the opinions of those who have spent probably 20-30 years studying it before they get anywhere near making decisions about patients who might kill if released.

For anyone that is worried though - just remember: we only get to hear about when the system fails, and never when it works.

maharg101

Emotional response: claw hammer and a can of petrol.

Lizard brain response: life imprisonment (with the claw hammer and petrol if they are ever released).

darthed1981

Fuck, fuck, fuck

Immersed a child in boiling water?

I'd put a bullet through this nasty crazy monster's head.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wear-68557974

I'm not saying it should be law, or we should bring back the death penalty, but I would do it.

Kurtis

darthed1981 said:

Fuck, fuck, fuck

Immersed a child in boiling water?

I'd put a bullet through this nasty crazy monster's head.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wear-68557974

I'm not saying it should be law, or we should bring back the death penalty, but I would do it.

Would you really? 

Id like to think there's a bit of bravado going on here. 

darthed1981

Kurtis said:

darthed1981 said:

Fuck, fuck, fuck

Immersed a child in boiling water?

I'd put a bullet through this nasty crazy monster's head.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wear-68557974

I'm not saying it should be law, or we should bring back the death penalty, but I would do it.

Would you really? 

Id like to think there's a bit of bravado going on here. 

Bravado isn't the word I'd use, I didn't mean it in a gung ho way.

Would I really do it? You never know until you are there do you?

I have a big problem with anyone who would hurt children, and their own children even more so.

Petepassion

And this is the problem, I myself have been close to a form of child abuse, I wasn't the abuser or being abused, but very close to the situation. On one hand I felt immense rage/anger, yet I knew rationally there was a reason and in this particular case I could see why the person was slowly mentally breaking down and could no longer cope. It was nothing like the case above, but still not good.
   Naturally we respond emotionally, we're only human, but I believe a big part of that anger is due to not seeing the full picture.
   I posted a link earlier to an old documentary 'Child of rage', initially seeing a child beat her little brothers head on the concrete floor, many would be outraged, but then when you learn what this little girl went through you really can't hold her accountable for her actions.