bring back hanging yes or no?

[sweatyhat]

I've done a bit of digging.

Double jeopardy was finished in the UK in 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm

[palo5]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

But the thing is, the population centers in Alaska are sub-Arctic, not Arctic climates . . . and most of Alaska is south of the Arctic circle.

Then send them to the cold places. That's what I meant the whole time. Send them to the Arctic to do some work. Did anyone say it had to be pleasant?

1-5 years of that is enough to shut most people up. You don't need longer sentences to teach people to regret (mostly)

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by sweatyhat

I've done a bit of digging.

Double jeopardy was finished in the UK in 2005
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4406129.stm

That is surprising and a bit troubling.

I don't know about the UK, but in the US actual jury trials ending in acquittal are not common in the first place. Of cases brought, probably %80 will result in a guilty plea, the remainder will go to trial, with about half resulting in a guilty verdict . . . so perhaps %10 of criminal defendants are actually acquitted here.

Originally Posted by palo5

Then send them to the cold places. That's what I meant the w

ah . . . but the point I was making is: they already are. Cold and far away. And hot in the summer. Its not at all pleasant in prison in the US. . . .

[3745 Laddie]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

But the thing is, the population centers in Alaska are sub-Arctic, not Arctic climates . . . and most of Alaska is south of the Arctic circle.



Wrong verdicts are not necessarily caused by dumb juries, nor bad judges nor lying informants, nor bad cops . . . any and all of these things can and have happened.

But to say "if we were just really, really careful, we'll always be right-- well that's clearly wrong"

As it is, US capital murder cases get extraordinary judicial review, they get better lawyers, get automatic appellate review at the highest level . . .

. . . and yet it turns out that even after all that, the verdicts are still sometimes wrong.

That's not some "correctable defect" in the system -- its inherent. We never have "perfect knowledge", and its not infrequent that, over time, new evidence turns up, or new techniques for examining old evidence.

Knowing that, do you still want this system killing people?

I don't want to see people killed,I want to see convicted murderers at least face the possibility of going to the gallows to be judicially and humanely executed,and only then after a fair trial with a fairly selected jury delivering a unanimous verdict and with the avenues of appeal and reprive open.

Now yes,mistakes were made before and could be made again,But they have been made in the meantime and innocent people spent a lot of time in jail.No one can give them that time back or wipe out the trauma for them.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

I don't understand 'double jeopardy'. Is it really true criminals can't be retried when you discover later they're guilty?

Yes, it is true in the UK since 2005, when the Criminal Justice Act 2003 came into law. So far two people have been re-tried and convicted on new evidence. The Director of Public Prosecutions has to personally endorse an application and then the UK's Court of Appeal has to agree to quash the previous acquittal before a new case can be brought. One of the two now serving life sentences under this new law is William Dunlop, whose case originally collapsed for lack of evidence. Some years later he confessed and served a prison term for perjury. When this new law came into force the police arrested him almost at once and he pleaded guilty at his new trial. The other one is Mark Weston, who had his victim's blood on his boots. DNA can be identified from very small samples now.

I must admit I am torn on this one. If the police cannot make a case stick when they originally try to, it is hardly fair that they can hound a man/woman for the same crime twice. But that's the job of the Court of Appeal, to throw out cases where malice rather than fresh evidence lies behind the application. I just wish I had more confidence in the Court of Appeal.

[Markus R]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Juries make mistakes; that's usually not their fault -- usually that there's some piece of evidence that they didn't see.

Accepting that the Courts and Juries are, like everything else done by man, fallible-- do you want to put people to death on their judgment?

I have always found it slightly unsettling that the outcome of a trial (and someone's life) was/is at the hands of those '12 good men (and women) true.' History has shown us that people can be cynical, prejudiced, ignorant and downright tunnel-minded in their opinions of another (you only have to look at forums).
I think if I was on trial for my life I would be (and would have been when the death sentence was extant) anxious to say the least that my fate rested with those 12

[3745 Laddie]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

Yes, it is true in the UK since 2005, when the Criminal Justice Act 2003 came into law. So far two people have been re-tried and convicted on new evidence. The Director of Public Prosecutions has to personally endorse an application and then the UK's Court of Appeal has to agree to quash the previous acquittal before a new case can be brought. One of the two now serving life sentences under this new law is William Dunlop, whose case originally collapsed for lack of evidence. Some years later he confessed and served a prison term for perjury. When this new law came into force the police arrested him almost at once and he pleaded guilty at his new trial. The other one is Mark Weston, who had his victim's blood on his boots. DNA can be identified from very small samples now.

I must admit I am torn on this one. If the police cannot make a case stick when they originally try to, it is hardly fair that they can hound a man/woman for the same crime twice. But that's the job of the Court of Appeal, to throw out cases where malice rather than fresh evidence lies behind the application. I just wish I had more confidence in the Court of Appeal.

It's not only unfair,it's also downright dangerous.It encourages sloppy investigation and prosecution and,in the hands of an unscrupulous government,a gilt edged chance to persecute any persons they have no fondness for,for whatever reasons.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

ah . . . but the point I was making is: they already are. Cold and far away.

In New York?

Nowhere in New York is cold and far away, Comrade

Send them to Alaska and teach them to respect society and behave

[seany65]

I think those who want it back should remember Derek Bentley. If he can hang but was innocent, then surely some of those that want it back could be found guilty of something they didn't do, they could then hang, if even if they are innocent?

They would have effectively signed their own death warrant.

As for the argument that "It would save the taxpayer a lot of money". Well, surely it would be quite expensive to have a decent appeals procedure going on? Look at the USA. Many on Death row have been there Decades, which means not only has the taxpayer funded the appeals procedure and paid for the execution, they've also paid for the food, clothes, building, bed and prison staff to keep the prisoner alive just so they can be killed! Look at the system that Britain had: Prisoner sentenced and hung within a couple of months. Is that enough time for a proper appeals procedure?

And how is it 'civilised' to legally murder soemone just so that each taxpayer pays a couple of pence less tax?

[3745 Laddie]

Originally Posted by seany65

I think those want it back should remember Derek Bentley. If he can hang but was innocent, then surely some of those that want it back could hang, if even if they are innocent?

They would have effectively signed their own death warrant.

Seany,Derek Bentley's conviction was clearly unsafe at the time and even the poor copper's widow was against his execution.Questions have to be asked not only about the competence but also the motives of those in a position to stop it who declined to do so.