Should the death penalty be reintroduced in the UK?

[Spymaster]

A defence or mitigating plea of insanity/diminished responsibility has been a factor in the UK legal system for centuries. Are you really content to remove that?

Seriously? I'm not sure how many times I can answer this for you, so I'm just going to leave it.

At least have the courage of your convictions and argue that you don't think mitigation should apply in some cases.

But I do think it should apply. I just don't particularly care if we get it wrong in the case of mass child killers and terrorists.

 

[Pickman's model]

But I do think it should apply. I just don't particularly care if we get it wrong in the case of mass child killers and terrorists

let's hope your hubris isn't swiftly followed by nemesis

 

[A380]

let's hope your hubris isn't swiftly followed by nemesis

Why? I think Spy quite likes rollercoasters.

 

[smokedout]

Seriously? I'm not sure how many times I can answer this for you, so I'm just going to leave it.



But I do think it should apply. I just don't particularly care if we get it wrong in the case of mass child killers and terrorists.

Your feelings are irrevelent. Do you think the law should care about whether it gets it wrong or not? Or should be legal system be based on hoping for the best? Even when a life is at stake.

The Rudakubana case is one of the most horrifying of my lifetime, and appears very clear cut. By whatever criteria you set most cases will not be so clear cut especially when it comes to mitigation or extenuating factors. You can't legislate based on one case and expect everything else to be as simple, it won't be.

 

[PTK]

Seriously? I'm not sure how many times I can answer this for you, so I'm just going to leave it.



But I do think it should apply. I just don't particularly care if we get it wrong in the case of mass child killers and terrorists.

If we don't care if we get it wrong, why should we care if we get it right? Why should be care about the punishment of murder at all? Certainly, some murders are regarded as more newsworthy to others of comparable enormity.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Those posts you quote aren't inconsistent Bahnhof Strasse

Relatives of victims should most certainly not have a say in the means of punishment of offenders.

That is not to say they shouldn't be afforded justice. In fact it's one of the primary duties of the penal system.

Having no say means you have no way of knowing what justice means to them, in fact you could very well be doing the very opposite of justice by sentencing them to spend the rest of their life feeling they have blood on their hands and that the memory of their loved one is forever soiled.

 

[Spymaster]

Your feelings are irrevelent. Do you think the law should care about whether it gets it wrong or not? Or should be legal system be based on hoping for the best? Even when a life is at stake.

The Rudakubana case is one of the most horrifying of my lifetime, and appears very clear cut. By whatever criteria you set most cases will not be so clear cut especially when it comes to mitigation or extenuating factors. You can't legislate based on one case and expect everything else to be as simple, it won't be.

The law should do everything possible at the time to guard against getting it wrong.

That means ensuring the person committed the crime beyond all doubt and doing what's possible to establish their state of mind.

As you say, the Rudakubana case is clear cut. Many others are equally so. If they're not, take away the DP.

 

[Pickman's model]

Why? I think Spy quite likes rollercoasters.

Don't think he'd be so keen to find firsthand that other people are equally unfussy about getting it right on people's guilt

 

[Spymaster]

Having no say means you have no way of knowing what justice means to them, in fact you could very well be doing the very opposite of justice by sentencing them to spend the rest of their life feeling they have blood on their hands and that the memory of their loved one is forever soiled.

Yes. This is why their views on sentencing should not be considered.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Yes. This is why their views on sentencing should not be considered.

So you would kill someone even if their victim's family begged you not to?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What is the purpose of this blood-letting again? I've lost track.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Yes. This is why their views on sentencing should not be considered.

Good, so fuck these guys:

What about those who don't, and feel disgusted and let down that they haven't had justice; or worse, at the prospect that the perpetrator might some day be released?

With regards to Venables, I see a line is to be drawn between hanged and child. Appears that line isn't adulthood as Rudakubana should swing, so just where is that line gonna be?

 

[brogdale]

have another bifta FFS, it was much nicer yesterday afternoon without your incessant contrarian trolling

 

[Spymaster]

So you would kill someone even if their victim's family begged you not to?

With the other conditions being satisfied. Absolutely.

 

[Pickman's model]

With the other conditions being satisfied. Absolutely.

How tho

 

[smokedout]

The law should do everything possible at the time to guard against getting it wrong.

That means ensuring the person committed the crime beyond all doubt and doing what's possible to establish their state of mind.

As you say, the Rudakubana case is clear cut. Many others are equally so. If they're not, take away the DP.

You don't understand the law. If a plea of diminished responsibility is successful the defendent is not guilty of murder, but of manslaughter. Therefore it has not been established that they committed the capital (in your world) offence of murder beyond all doubt. It has actually been established that they didn't commit murder, and therefore could not be sentenced to death for murder.

 

[PTK]

The Rudakubana case is one of the most horrifying of my lifetime, and appears very clear cut.

Is it clear-cut that Rudakubana was fully mentally competent?

 

[hash tag]

Again, this only applies to a certain section of relatives and ignores those to whom CP would deliver a sense of justice and closure.

If someone stabbed my child 200 times to death, I'd want to pull the lever myself.

An eye for an eye

 

[Spymaster]

With regards to Venables, I see a line is to be drawn between hanged and child. Appears that line isn't adulthood as Rudakubana should swing, so just where is that line gonna be?

As I said, a line has to be drawn so I accept that Rudakabana would escape the noose.

 

[Spymaster]

have another bifta FFS, it was much nicer yesterday afternoon without your incessant contrarian trolling

I'm only responding to other's questions.

You know there's a thread ignore function, right?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You don't understand the law. If a plea of diminished responsibility is successful the defendent is not guilty of murder, but of manslaughter. Therefore it has not been established that they committed the capital (in your world) offence of murder beyond all doubt. It has actually been established that they didn't commit murder, and therefore could not be sentenced to death for murder.

Or perhaps not even manslaugther. There have been cases of people killing their partners in a 'sleepwalk' state - waking up next to a dead body and not knowing at all how it happened. You might 'establish the fact' that someone killed another person and find that no crime was committed at all.

Life, and morality, and the concepts of responsibility and guilt, are all messy. We can do our best to make sense of it all, but to pretend that you have absolute answers to these questions is foolish in the extreme. The whole of Spymaster's argument is foolish in the extreme.

 

[smokedout]

Is it clear-cut that Rudakubana was fully mentally competent?

No I don't think it is tbh and it wouldn't surprise me if he was diagnosed with something whilst in prison as often happens in similar cases. The truth is the difference between diminished responsibility and murder isn't that great in terms of sentencing. You could even potentially spend longer in a secure hospital than prison, so it's not used as a defence that often. If the death penalty was re-introduced the stakes would be much higher and that would very likely change.

 

[Spymaster]

You don't understand the law. If a plea of diminished responsibility is successful the defendent is not guilty of murder, but of manslaughter. Therefore it has not been established that they committed the capital (in your world) offence of murder beyond all doubt. It has actually been established that they didn't commit murder, and therefore could not be sentenced to death for murder.

Ffs, I understand the law perfectly well.

If the plea of diminished responsibility is successful they wouldn't be executed!

 

[brogdale]

I'm only responding to other's questions.

You know there's a thread ignore function, right?

Thread's fine, tbf

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

As I said, a line has to be drawn so I accept that Rudakabana would escape the noose.

Apologies, I interpreted what you said in a different way, but you are saying that under this system Rudakabana gets to live.

 

[Pickman's model]

Ffs, I understand the law perfectly well.

If the plea of diminished responsibility is successful they wouldn't be executed!

Spymaster, kc

 

[brogdale]

Spymaster, kc

that's quite rude...or have I misinterpreted those initials?

 

[Pickman's model]

that's quite rude...or have I misinterpreted those initials?

King's counsel, a suffix for senior barristers

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

No I don't think it is tbh and it wouldn't surprise me if he was diagnosed with something whilst in prison as often happens in similar cases.

My old mucker Zippy was judged fit to be sentenced to life without parole, i.e. not diminished responsibility, in spite of the fact that he was held on remand in Broadmoor for the entire pre-trial period and after sentencing went straight from the court to Broadmoor (where he subsequently committed suicide). I thought at the time that he was clearly eligible for a diminished responsibility verdict but perhaps 'the system' wanted him locked up as sane cos as a with a not guilty + a hospital order, that allows for release should you ever get better, and they didn't want that to ever happen.

 

[PTK]

I am unclear as to how "justice" covers punishing someone who wrongs you.

If you sack me from my job for no reason, or you steal my watch, you have behaved unjustly. If I am reinstated, or my watch is returned, then the detriment I suffered has been reversed. How would the punishing of the person who wronged me be of benefit to me? It would not eradicate the injustice that I suffered.

If I am being treated unjustly, then for me to be treated justly would entail, not someone being punished, but me being no longer treated unjustly.

I was assaulted once while walking home late at night. That injustice cannot be undone. I would have liked the people who assaulted me to have been punished, but I am not sure what that has to do with justice.