Out on Licence

[robinthehood]

100% wrong? So it's OK to murder someone who later turns out to be innocent? Just because we got some of the others right?

Ironically it's your attitude that does indeed prove that our society needs a good cleanse...............

(did I do enough dots?)

It's the usual knee jerk poorly thought out reaction.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

That statement was in response to the HIGHLIGHTED text in gmc40's post.
"There’s always a risk of miscarriage of justice resulting in the wrong person being killed. One is too many IMO".
I replied "That is just wrong, plain and simple, 100% wrong".
Well, there is not ALWAYS a risk of a miscarriage of justice, as I pointed out in post # 66.

But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

So you are still not clear on this.

Are you prepared to accept just one wrongful execution as an acceptable price and, if so, are you willing to explain the State's position to the family of the wrongfully killed person?

 

[gmc40]

So you are still not clear on this.

Are you prepared to accept just one wrongful execution as an acceptable price and, if so, are you willing to explain the State's position to the family of the wrongfully killed person?

He’s given one example in post 66 where they “deffo did it”. That would be scenario 1 on my earlier post.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

He’s given one example in post 66 where they “deffo did it”. That would be scenario 1 on my earlier post.

But not answered the question initially raised by yourself in the third point in post #73.

It is a question that I have never had answered by any proponent of capital punishment.

If, as I am sure we all do, we consider murder of just one person by terrorists/criminals to be unacceptable then is it any different if the State is responsible for the death?

 

[bobmac]

There's not much point in arguing about what happens to a terrorist after the crime, efforts should be focused on deterring the terrorist from committing the crime in the first place.
IMO

 

[gmc40]

There's not much point in arguing about what happens to a terrorist after the crime, efforts should be focused on deterring the terrorist from committing the crime in the first place.
IMO

Executing them as some advocate won’t help with that. What the police did the other day was 100% correct as the chap was wearing what appeared to be a suicide vest. They neutralised the threat and had a split second to make that decision.

In other cases however, better to let them rot in prison and hope to de-radicalise them. In that scenario, there’s always a possibility of gaining valuable info that may prevent future attacks.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I tend to be of the opinion that dead terrorists become martyrs.
Imprisoned terrorists become forgotten, unless they go on hunger strike and kill themselves so they can become martyrs.
Not always the case though eg Mandela/ Ghandi.

 

[stefanovic]

For the promise of virgins in Paradise, any male Muslim will be interested.
"If you become a martyr, God will give you 70 virgins, 70 wives and ... sura 56 verses 12 -40 ; sura 55 verses 54-56 ; sura 76 verses 12-22.

For some people what they are told in the mosque they actually believe.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

But not answered the question initially raised by yourself in the third point in post #73.

It is a question that I have never had answered by any proponent of capital punishment.

If, as I am sure we all do, we consider murder of just one person by terrorists/criminals to be unacceptable then is it any different if the State is responsible for the death?

What puzzles me is that in the capital punishment debate it seems that we have to have polarised positions.
All murderers should be executed, or no murderers should be executed.
The first arises from this Country's former penalty for murder, I.e a fixed penalty, it being execution.
The second arises, it seems, from the desire to avoid executing an innocent person.
I am of the opinion that deterrence works, and the absence of the death sentence emboldens villains in that they now readily kill, as the present spate in London stabbing shows.
However, I do agree that executing the innocent is abhorrent.

But why cannot there be different punishments for murder convictions.
Because there are different circumstances each case, even though they all may be murder.
Some are plain horrific and without any form of doubt.
Others, there may be a degree of moral justification, E.g.cruel blackmail
Others, the jury deliberate long and hard. And certainly I wouldn't execute those found guilty on a majority verdict.( is that allowed at present in murder cases?)
In all cases there is much evidence and information with the Judge, which the jury does not have, and he is in a more informed position and has experience to call on so that he could/would impose prison rather than execution if there was the slightest doubt in his mind.
In practice, that would mean most murderers would be imprisoned. But the clearest, most heinous would rightly be removed .
And there have been enough instances of really nasty murderers killing again for that "removal" to be a valid consideration

 

[Wolf]

For the promise of virgins in Paradise, any male Muslim will be interested.
"If you become a martyr, God will give you 70 virgins, 70 wives and ... sura 56 verses 12 -40 ; sura 55 verses 54-56 ; sura 76 verses 12-22.

For some people what they are told in the mosque they actually believe.

Generalisation of any male Muslim to suit your agenda. Not every Muslim will seek to become a jihadist just because the book says they'll be rewarded and its unbelievably naive or Islamaphobic to potentially suggest otherwise..

 

[bobmac]

Generalisation of any male Muslim to suit your agenda. Not every Muslim will seek to become a jihadist just because the book says they'll be rewarded and its unbelievably naive or islamaphibic to potentially suggest otherwise..

The problem is if only 0,1% of all muslims want to be a jihadist thats still 1.8 million people who want to cut your head off.

 

[TheDiablo]

What puzzles me is that in the capital punishment debate it seems that we have to have polarised positions.
All murderers should be executed, or no murderers should be executed.
The first arises from this Country's former penalty for murder, I.e a fixed penalty, it being execution.
The second arises, it seems, from the desire to avoid executing an innocent person.
I am of the opinion that deterrence works, and the absence of the death sentence emboldens villains in that they now readily kill, as the present spate in London stabbing shows.
However, I do agree that executing the innocent is abhorrent.

But why cannot there be different punishments for murder convictions.
Because there are different circumstances each case, even though they all may be murder.
Some are plain horrific and without any form of doubt.
Others, there may be a degree of moral justification, E.g.cruel blackmail
Others, the jury deliberate long and hard. And certainly I wouldn't execute those found guilty on a majority verdict.( is that allowed at present in murder cases?)
In all cases there is much evidence and information with the Judge, which the jury does not have, and he is in a more informed position and has experience to call on so that he could/would impose prison rather than execution if there was the slightest doubt in his mind.
In practice, that would mean most murderers would be imprisoned. But the clearest, most heinous would rightly be removed .
And there have been enough instances of really nasty murderers killing again for that "removal" to be a valid consideration

How have you formed that opinion? Just a 'hunch' or actually based on anything?

Empirical evidence shows otherwise. It actually shows that those with the death penalty have HIGHER homicide rates than those societies who have abolished it.

 

[Wolf]

The problem is if only 0,1% of all muslims want to be a jihadist thats still 1.8 million people who want to cut your head off.

That's still not every male Muslim though is it Bob. Yes it's an extremely large potential number of extremists and Jihadist, but there is no way to stop radicalisation across the world. We can have direct impact within our own borders but beyond that no matter what intelligence services do will we never be able to stop that. But that doesn't mean we should accept people tarnishing all muslims or other denominations with the same brush which was my point in the post you quoted.

 

[harpo_72]

The problem is if only 0,1% of all muslims want to be a jihadist thats still 1.8 million people who want to cut your head off.

Better to refer to people not by religion because bad behaviours transcend religion. This is extremist behaviour and seriously we don’t talk about enough of the others.
What we need to see is the root cause and address this like those who have seen an opportunity to radicalise these people to commit these atrocities.
What I am confused by, is where was the early release triggered, was it when he was given a determined time on his sentence? And who initiated that?
I appreciate the legal system but sometimes I get the feeling that they get lost.

 

[Slime]

So you are still not clear on this.

Are you prepared to accept just one wrongful execution as an acceptable price and, if so, are you willing to explain the State's position to the family of the wrongfully killed person?

Okay, let me make myself a bit clearer.
One wrongful execution is one too many.


I'd still vote for the re-introduction of the death penalty .......................................... in an instant.

 

[Slime]

But not answered the question initially raised by yourself in the third point in post #73.

It is a question that I have never had answered by any proponent of capital punishment.

If, as I am sure we all do, we consider murder of just one person by terrorists/criminals to be unacceptable then is it any different if the State is responsible for the death?

You have now. See previous post.

I still wished that we could have executed Usman Khan, two innocent people would still be alive and many lives would not have been ruined.

 

[bobmac]

That's still not every male Muslim though is it Bob.

I was agreeing with you, just pointing out that a tiny percentage is still a huge number

 

[Slime]

I think some people should just calm down a bit.
The condescending and nature of some of the replies on here really did surprise me, except from one person, just because I have a differing opinion.
I favour the death penalty, as do others, just accept it and/or counter it in an adult fashion.
That's not asking too much, surely?

 

[Hobbit]

Better to refer to people not by religion because bad behaviours transcend religion. This is extremist behaviour and seriously we don’t talk about enough of the others.
What we need to see is the root cause and address this like those who have seen an opportunity to radicalise these people to commit these atrocities.
What I am confused by, is where was the early release triggered, was it when he was given a determined time on his sentence? And who initiated that?
I appreciate the legal system but sometimes I get the feeling that they get lost.

Can't remember the exact detail but didn't someone with an indeterminate sentence appeal to the ECJ or Court of Human Rights? And at that point, when the court found in favour of the criminal, those sentences were given a fixed term. From there, parole was always going to come into the mix.

I also seem to remember that due to overcrowding about 3 years back a significant number of prisoners were released earlier than the usual qualification period for parole.

Old age and that, I am probably wrong but think it was something like that.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Can't remember the exact detail but didn't someone with an indeterminate sentence appeal to the ECJ or Court of Human Rights? And at that point, when the court found in favour of the criminal, those sentences were given a fixed term. From there, parole was always going to come into the mix.

I also seem to remember that due to overcrowding about 3 years back a significant number of prisoners were released earlier than the usual qualification period for parole.

Old age and that, I am probably wrong but think it was something like that.

It was exactly that Bri, when the 3 won their case those on those sentences appealed.
https://thesecretbarrister.com/