Death penalty

[RogertheBodger]

So in such a system as practiced in the USA you're far more likely to be on death row after killing someone if you're black, poor, poorly educated or a combination of all three.
Is that justice?

Is what Justice?

I'm sure that no posters on this thread have suggested that, poor, black, poorly educated people, have been been given the death sentence just because of the background they come from. Is that what you think, I'm surprised.

 

[trev]

Is what Justice?

I'm sure that no posters on this thread have suggested that, poor, black, poorly educated people, have been been given the death sentence just because of the background they come from. Is that what you think, I'm surprised.

No one has suggested it Roger but a few have suggested, or appeared to suggest, a tiered system whereby certain types of murder would attract the death penalty while others would not.
I'm simply pointing out that in a place where such a system exists the economically and/or educationally disadvantaged and those who are black are far more likely to find themselves on a charge of capital murder than rich white people with a good standard of education.

 

[plugsandsparks]

Is what Justice?

I'm sure that no posters on this thread have suggested that, poor, black, poorly educated people, have been been given the death sentence just because of the background they come from. Is that what you think, I'm surprised.

It appears to me that if you are rich or well educated or connected to the right people, you can get yourself an half decent defence lawyer to argue the case. So I think the point is that just perhaps justice (that is "getting off") is a function of wealth and probably education. OJ Simpson and Pistorias immediately spring to mind.

 

[Guest77]

No one has suggested it Roger but a few have suggested, or appeared to suggest, a tiered system whereby certain types of murder would attract the death penalty while others would not.
I'm simply pointing out that in a place where such a system exists the economically and/or educationally disadvantaged and those who are black are far more likely to find themselves on a charge of capital murder than rich white people with a good standard of education.

Jimmy saville is white, even if he was black I would still want him dead.

 

[RogertheBodger]

No one has suggested it Roger but a few have suggested, or appeared to suggest, a tiered system whereby certain types of murder would attract the death penalty while others would not.
I'm simply pointing out that in a place where such a system exists the economically and/or educationally disadvantaged and those who are black are far more likely to find themselves on a charge of capital murder than rich white people with a good standard of education.

Maybe "tiered" is not the right word Trev, as in the difference between black or white, rich or poor, I would hate to think that was the case and would be dead set against it.

What has been suggested by some in this thread, in my opinion, is that there are different classes of Murder, first, second degree, manslaughter etc, and they would all attract different sentences in the event of a guilty verdict, added to these different sentences would be further adjustments to the sentence due to mitigating factors etc. Were the death sentence to be in force in the UK then it should only be pronounced in the most clear cut and proven of cases, as in the cases where video evidence is available and guilt is indisputable, and then only for the most evil of crimes. Equally beyond doubt is that this legal structure should be applied across the board to all levels of society, whatever their social status or color.

Perhaps the ability of the rich to hire a battery of the top defense lawyers will buy them a not guilty verdict or a reduced sentence, but if the sentence is death, that should be an even more secure conviction because the defense lawyers will have left no stone unturned during the trial.

I would say that most violent crime is carried out by the most disadvantaged sections of society, does this include a large percentage of black people, I don't know the stats, not sure we want to get into that anyway.

 

[Adam W]

The death penalty for Jimmy Saville isn't going to work, since he was dead and buried before his atrocities came to light.

Harsher sentencing, the ultimate one being the death penalty, always seems to be the cover-all deterrent to committing a crime, but that's no good if there's a good chance you'll get away with it. People wouldn't commit crimes if crime didn't pay.

 

[trev]

Jimmy saville is white, even if he was black I would still want him dead.

I think you're missing my point Mike. The fact of the matter is, as I've pointed out, in the US you're more likely to be on trial for your life if you're black, poor and not well educated.
Yes you could argue that those people are more likely to commit a murder but there have been a lot of cases where a similar murder has been committed but the accused come from different ends of the social spectrum. One person ends up on death row while the other gets a prison sentence with a light at the end of the tunnel

 

[BES]

Good job you weren't in Nuremberg you would have given them community service.
Have a look for Westley allan dodd and see if you could have sentenced him to death.

Have you ever sat on a jury?

Yes I have and your point is ?

 

[BES]

Jimmy saville is white, even if he was black I would still want him dead.

I think you're missing my point Mike. The fact of the matter is, as I've pointed out, in the US you're more likely to be on trial for your life if you're black, poor and not well educated.
Yes you could argue that those people are more likely to commit a murder but there have been a lot of cases where a similar murder has been committed but the accused come from different ends of the social spectrum. One person ends up on death row while the other gets a prison sentence with a light at the end of the tunnel

Trev.You make some good points on the death penalty in the USA. With each state having there own policy on the death penalty its possible to commit murder in one state and get put to death and 10 miles down the road in another state commit same crime and be sentanced to life with parole or in a different state life without. Since 'Furman' came down the amount of time spent on death row as gone from at a guess a matter of months in the first half of the 20th century to now 10 -15 yrs some as long as unbeleivably 30 yrs.
Yes especially in the southern 'death belt states ' race , education & wealth has always been and most likely always will determine if you get the death penalty or not. You've got to remember Texas who lead the way in executions were still executing for rape into the 1960's.
I too was againt the death penalty for the simple reason like others that 1% chance your executing the wrong person but certain cases such as the Rigby murder, Huntley , Sutcliff , Brady & Hindley and many more in this country and the likes of Dodd, Bundy , Gacy in the USA and others around the world like the guy in Norway , can't remember his name .With all the names lve metioned there was no doubt they commited the crime they were convicted of , in the Dodd case he said if he ever was released he would commit the same crimes again , these are the people who should be executed.
Many innocent people have been executed in the past and will be in the future in certain parts of the world and just one is too many but when there is absolutley no doubt like the names I've mention please explain why they should not be executed.

 

[Engineer54]

Sorry for not being clear
They are the sentence as imposed added to the age of the scum

My point being in his case there may be no whole life sentence
He may be free to have another go in his 60s at worst,before that it will be the usual case of releasing a prisoner on parole years before full sentence is served
He could be looking forward to many years wandering free.
As i stated above, parole tends to kick in after 2/3rds of the sentence has been served, but it has been known for parole to start much earlier

I completely agree with the comment about a politician having no role in sentence review other than referal
I find it to be totally unacceptable for a politician to start handing down prison sentences, especially ''Whole Life'' sentences...

Whilst mentioning parole and going back to my post about making prison horrendous
Parole should be consideration of behaviour after serving the full term
Parole is a term for being freed from incarceration under warrant while the sentence continues. So you can't have a parole situation when the full term has been served, the prisoner will have in effect have paid his price to soceity...

It should be a case of "be a good boy and the sentence may not be increased for bad behaviour"
"Be a naughty boy" and the sentence is increased to suit.
That goes on now, commit offences against the prison rules and the prisoner will face additional time to serve. For minor offences, sentences are handed down by the prison Governor, for serious offences a visiting County Court Judge hears the case and can hand down a longer additional sentence than the Governor can. Or if it's a very serious offence refer the case to be heard by a high court....

The law in the UK has always been a --- anyway, far too many rules in place to protect the accused than anything like there are to protect the victims....

 

[Slowhand]

Yes I have and your point is ?

So have I and listening to some of the other jurors discussing the case left me with no doubt the system is flawed.

 

[BES]

Yes I have and your point is ?

So have I and listening to some of the other jurors discussing the case left me with no doubt the system is flawed.

Yeh I agree the juror system can be flawed. But the type of case I'm saying sould end in the death penalty would have no need for a jury.

 

[Tiny Spark]

Jimmy saville is white, even if he was black I would still want him dead.

Bit late for that

 

[Slowhand]

Yeh I agree the juror system can be flawed. But the type of case I'm saying sould end in the death penalty would have no need for a jury.

Ok l see where you're coming from now, extreme cases like Anders Breivik for example, absolutely no doubt of guilt of premeditated mass murder?

 

[BES]

Yeh I agree the juror system can be flawed. But the type of case I'm saying sould end in the death penalty would have no need for a jury.

Ok l see where you're coming from now, extreme cases like Anders Breivik for example, absolutely no doubt of guilt of premeditated mass murder?

Exactly. But cases such as Westley Allen Dodd who kidnapped , sexually abused and tortured before murdering 3 very young boys he told officials he would do it again if ever got out of prision and he masturbated none stop in his cell reliving his crime even hours before they executed him.
John Wayne Gacy tortured and murdered 33 young men. Ted Bundy murdered who knows how many its never been definetly confirmed. Dennis Radar who killed ten , he denied everything untill he was offered a plea bargin that he couldnt receive the death penalty then told everything in court going into minute details of the murders without blinking an eye. These sort of people will need some kind of trial but where their guilt is like the ones I've mentioned beond reasonable doubt maybe something simalar to a high court where there are three judges there hear the evidence and to pass sentance.

 

[bf03yvd]

What if they bring back the electric chair ? More work for us spakies lol

 

[BES]

What if they bring back the electric chair ? More work for us spakies lol

Most of the first electric chairs were built , maintained and operated by the prision electricians. The first was in new york state in 1890. Nice little side line especially during the 20s and 30s during the depression in the usa they were getting 150 dollars a execution when even a skilled guy was only earning a small amount.

 

[Paul.M]

Most of the first electric chairs were built , maintained and operated by the prision electricians. The first was in new york state in 1890. Nice little side line especially during the 20s and 30s during the depression in the usa they were getting 150 dollars a execution when even a skilled guy was only earning a small amount.

Bloody Electrical Trainee's stealing our work :rofl:

 

[BES]

Most of the first electric chairs were built , maintained and operated by the prision electricians. The first was in new york state in 1890. Nice little side line especially during the 20s and 30s during the depression in the usa they were getting 150 dollars a execution when even a skilled guy was only earning a small amount.

Bloody Electrical Trainee's stealing our work :rofl:

The first electric chair execution indirectly involved some big names. Thomas Edision was in a bit of a war with George Westinghouse over who's type of electricity was going to be used to power the USA Edisons Dc or Westinghouse Ac and neither want to have theirs used for an execution for obvious reasons. When the politicians decided to use Ac generators to power the first electric chair Westinghouse refused to supply them so they had to get the two generators to be sent to a university in brazil on a bogus order and then back to the prision in albany in new york. When westinghouse heard about this he tried to delay the execution by paying for defence lawyers for the appeal of the first victim of the chair a wife murder callec william kemmler. He only managed to delay the execution for a few months and the execution went ahead. It took approx 15 mins to kill kemmler the first two jolts of 2500v didn't kill him so the executioner called Edwin Davis the prision electrician banged the gennys up full and gave kemmler 17000 v to finish he off. Aparently just about cooking him.

 

[trev]

Many innocent people have been executed in the past and will be in the future in certain parts of the world and just one is too many but when there is absolutley no doubt like the names I've mention please explain why they should not be executed.

Why does the state kill people who kill people to demonstrate that killing is wrong?
It is not a deterrent. If it were then no murders would occur.
It's a difficult one considering the names you mention but there is always a chance that the justice system will get it wrong again.
Imo you either support the death penalty for all found guilty of murder or you do not. I can't support it.