|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 20:20:01 GMT
no lad. it's proof that the system gets them off death row before they are executed You cannot assume that because some innocent people are freed from death row that every innocent person gets freed from death row. You have absolulety no proof of that.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 20:22:27 GMT
[ of course it does. if there is a shred of exculpatory evidence anywhere out there, the appellate attorney is going to find it. No, you don't have any evidence of that either. All you can say is he will look for that evidence, but that does not mean he will find it.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 27, 2010 21:13:09 GMT
People seem to be confusing two separate but equally controversial cases of execution on this thread.
Until last year I lived about 10 minutes away from Derek Bentley's home and I knew the case well.
Let's at least get the names of the people involved RIGHT.
In the shooting of the police officer, the two arrested people were Derek Bentley, aged 19, and Christopher Craig, aged 16, It was Craig who had the gun and who killed the constable.
Timothy Evans was involved in a DIFFERENT case that certainly WAS a miscarriage of justice. He was a landlord and was unlucky enough to have a multiple murderer as his tenant. The Evans family lived at 10 Rillington Place in Notting Hill; Derek Bentley lived at 1 Fairview Road, Norbury.
The tenant from hell at Rillington Place was John Christie, a serial killer who was eventually executed for his other murders. He murdered Evans' wife and child and then testified against the widower. Because Christie was a former police officer and Evans was subnormal, the word of the true killer was taken without anything much in the way of evidence against Evans. He was executed. Eventually Christie was caught and hung himself. Evans' case was then reviewed and his conviction overturned.
Clearer now?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 21:17:10 GMT
Of course, I seem to have got my wires crossed at some point.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 27, 2010 21:33:24 GMT
For what it's worth I look on Bentley's execution as a different kind of miscarriage of justice. Unlike Evans, who was wrongly executed for another man's crime, Bentley WAS a villain and easily led by Craig into mischief.
As far as English law is concerned, Random Voice is quite right, Because Bentley was in police custody at the time, he could NOT legally have been charged with murder.
Because Craig at 16 was too young to be executed, the police DID lie about Bentley's actions and location at the time.
Even the judge who sentenced Bentley to death firmly believed that he WOULD be reprieved by the Home Secretary.
Unfortunately he wasn't.
Different case; not quite as bad a miscarriage as with Evans but still a situation where a man should not have been executed.
I don't deny that innocents have been executed and I don't take that lightly.
On the other hand, guilty people have been freed and gone on to commit more murders.
We have to be very careful before we execute anyone and in the old days the justice system was a bit sloppier plus of course with recent scientific advances like DNA (although even that is being queried now after it's been demonstrated that it CAN be planted or fabricated) make it less likely.
On the other hand, if you seriously suggest that Sutcliffe, Brady and the other mob I mentioned are innocent I wonder about your own standards of evidence, RV.
Would you have convicted them if you'd been sitting on the jury?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 27, 2010 22:02:30 GMT
Different case; not quite as bad a miscarriage as with Evans but still a situation where a man should not have been executed. A young man convicted after the police had lied and the Home Secretary of the day turning a Nelson’s eye to the evidence of a cover up? A pretty damming indictment of the death penalty, in my book. On the other hand, guilty people have been freed and gone on to commit more murders. Yes, but that is fault of the legal system, parole board and sentencing policy, not to mention the prison service etc. That is a completely different kettle of fish to the death penalty. If you want to argue for longer prison sentences, stricter parole conditions, more prisons and better evidence gathering techniques etc, then I am all for that. We have to be very careful before we execute anyone and in the old days the justice system was a bit sloppier plus of course with recent scientific advances like DNA (although even that is being queried now after it's been demonstrated that it CAN be planted or fabricated) make it less likely. Yes, but miscarriages can and still do occur, I cannot believe that just because the death penalty was re-introduced that these miscarriages would cease. On the other hand, if you seriously suggest that Sutcliffe, Brady and the other mob I mentioned are innocent I wonder about your own standards of evidence, RV. Would you have convicted them if you'd been sitting on the jury? You miss the point though Lin. EVERYONE convicted in this Country is convicted at the same level, beyond reasonable doubt you are either completely guilty or you are innocent*. That means that Evans was ‘definitely’ as guilty as Sutcliff and Fred West was. The fact that you pick these guys out means nothing, because someone has to choose who this special level of guilt applies to. *Note to RG: Yes, Scotland still has ‘not proven’, so don’t bother
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Jan 27, 2010 23:16:21 GMT
I am, unlike my wife, opposed to the death penalty. On the other hand I do feel that the present laws are a travesty of justice. We regularly see violent offenders and even murderers receiving derisory sentences and that cannot be right.
It sometimes appears as if the law is more concerned with protecting the vested interests of the rich than it is in dispensing justice in an even-handed fashion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2010 6:27:32 GMT
Isn't it more to do with the fact that our prisons are full? The public wants to see violent criminals locked away but doesn't want to spend money building top security jails... still less do they want to jails near them!
Every now and then a cry goes out that our prisons are full of "people who shouldn't be there" but at the end of the day prison has to be the ultimate santion, even for shoplifters.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 11:44:28 GMT
People seem to be confusing two separate but equally controversial cases of execution on this thread. Until last year I lived about 10 minutes away from Derek Bentley's home and I knew the case well. Let's at least get the names of the people involved RIGHT. In the shooting of the police officer, the two arrested people were Derek Bentley, aged 19, and Christopher Craig, aged 16, It was Craig who had the gun and who killed the constable. Timothy Evans was involved in a DIFFERENT case that certainly WAS a miscarriage of justice. He was a landlord and was unlucky enough to have a multiple murderer as his tenant. The Evans family lived at 10 Rillington Place in Notting Hill; Derek Bentley lived at 1 Fairview Road, Norbury. The tenant from hell at Rillington Place was John Christie, a serial killer who was eventually executed for his other murders. He murdered Evans' wife and child and then testified against the widower. Because Christie was a former police officer and Evans was subnormal, the word of the true killer was taken without anything much in the way of evidence against Evans. He was executed. Eventually Christie was caught and hung himself. Evans' case was then reviewed and his conviction overturned. Clearer now? i started it a couple pages back. i was thinking about too many things at once and stuck the "evans" into the wrong case
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 11:51:39 GMT
You miss the point though Lin. EVERYONE convicted in this Country is convicted at the same level, beyond reasonable doubt you are either completely guilty or you are innocent*. That means that Evans was ‘definitely’ as guilty as Sutcliff and Fred West was. The fact that you pick these guys out means nothing, because someone has to choose who this special level of guilt applies to.
not at all. YOU continue to miss the point. yes, the standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt, which mind you, is infinitely higher standard than preponderance of evidence. there IS a difference between beyond a reasonable doubt, and beyond ALL doubt, in which there is not the remotest possibility of innocence, such as in the cases lin cited
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 28, 2010 11:57:24 GMT
the notion of simply incarcerating murderers is specious on its face, and shows a callous disregard for the murderer's victims, past and future. there is NO guarantee that a murderer in the general population will not maim or kill someone else. it is a common occurrence in fact. in 2007, nineteen people and a horse were murdered by escaped murderers. that figure does not include the hundreds of guards and other inmates killed and injured inside the prison. execution is the ONLY way to completely guarantee that no one else becomes a victim, which is totally what the justice system's responsibility is
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 28, 2010 12:13:53 GMT
there IS a difference between beyond a reasonable doubt, and beyond ALL doubt, in which there is not the remotest possibility of innocence, such as in the cases lin cited But somebody STILL has to make that distinction, though. Someone still has to look at the evidence and decide what is beyond reasonable and beyond all doubt. There is where the possiblity of hanging the wrong person comes in.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 28, 2010 12:23:22 GMT
I am, unlike my wife, opposed to the death penalty. On the other hand I do feel that the present laws are a travesty of justice. We regularly see violent offenders and even murderers receiving derisory sentences and that cannot be right. It sometimes appears as if the law is more concerned with protecting the vested interests of the rich than it is in dispensing justice in an even-handed fashion. Hi Mike, are you referring to the way a robbery can sometimes command a longer prison sentence than a rape or a murder? That always baffles me too and so far all I can think is that a robbery is easier to commit - all of us could easily be in a situation where theft becomes seemingly justifiable or necessary or desirable to us whereas you need to be a special kind of evil to get as far as murder. It seems illogical but presumably the stricter theft sentences are because they work as a deterrent and we need something to deter us?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 28, 2010 12:36:34 GMT
Isn't it more to do with the fact that our prisons are full? The public wants to see violent criminals locked away but doesn't want to spend money building top security jails... still less do they want to jails near them! Every now and then a cry goes out that our prisons are full of "people who shouldn't be there" but at the end of the day prison has to be the ultimate santion, even for shoplifters. Many of the people in jail have mental health problems. They have been turfed out into the street and cannot cope with real life and end up commiting crimes. If we built secure wards for such people before they commit crime, then we would have less crime and more prison places. What is wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 28, 2010 13:26:30 GMT
Many of the people in jail have mental health problems. They have been turfed out into the street and cannot cope with real life and end up commiting crimes.
and breeding...dont forget breeding ...well its called care in the comunity...suposedly better for them than mental hospitals and institutions...so bleeding heart liberals seem to think but certainly not better for the comunities who find them in their midst
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 31, 2010 2:57:33 GMT
I continue to be much more worried about heinous killers being released into the general population than i am about innocents being wrongly executed. I think Random Voice is dodging this issue.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 31, 2010 15:46:15 GMT
I continue to be much more worried about heinous killers being released into the general population than i am about innocents being wrongly executed. I think Random Voice is dodging this issue. that's becauase the vicious killers are released in vastly superior numbers to any found to be factually innocent
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 2, 2010 3:29:31 GMT
Reminds me of Guantanamo where we released Al Queda operatives who are now leading the Jihadists in Yemn. How dumb was that?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Feb 2, 2010 11:37:40 GMT
why does the death sentence have to justified.....who says it has to be justified...we humans make the rules dont we....
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 2, 2010 13:18:46 GMT
Reminds me of Guantanamo where we released Al Queda operatives who are now leading the Jihadists in Yemn. How dumb was that? the abominable thing is that the stated position of the touchy feely crowd us that it doesn't matter how many people die, as long as a murderer doesn't
|
|