Someone has popped up in this thread who has indeed found the point hard to grasp, rather as I expected, thus making my point. As far as cold blood goes, I had in mind the Libyans who killed Ghaddafi out of hand when they caught him, likewise those who killed Nicolae Ceausescu, Benito Mussolini, etc. The issue there is that the murderous tyrant might get back into power and murder millions more, so it's better to kill him while you have your hands on him. It's messy and ethically difficult, but I cannot really condemn the guys who killed the tyrants. Who wouldn't, in their position? The case of some sad, demented domestic murderer in a prison cell is rather different - that really would be in cold blood (as Truman Capote famously pointed out).
Well, I have seen lots of trials, Glidd, studied transcripts, attended appeals, and I am familiar with the rules, practices and procedures. First, all those involved are human beings, with all the variability that implies. Most judges try their best to run each trial fairly; most prosecution and defence lawyers represent their side of the case while following the rules; most juries try to reach the right answer. However a few judges are incompetent, some prosecutors are incentivised to secure convictions regardless of the truth, some police lie, and some jury persons have no idea what is going on. Defendants, of course, usually lie - but that does not necessarily make them guilty as charged. Court procedures are designed to reach the truth and avoid injustice, but they are not perfect. Over the years, they are refined, developed and improved but will never reach 100%. Witnesses can be mistaken, lying or intimidated. Forensic material can be planted or fabricated. Experts can get it wrong. There is always some doubt. If even the most minute shred of doubt meant acquittal, no-one would ever be convicted. Absolute certainty is unobtainable. Thus the bar is set at the level of "reasonable doubt". If the prosection evidence proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, in the opinion of the jury or judge, that supports a conviction. My conscience rests easy if convicted people are sent to prison and treated humanely, even though there is a small possibility they are innocent after all. My conscience would be sorely troubled if convicted people were executed, or treated brutally. That is where I draw the line. And remember, the process is more reliable in Britain than in most other countries of the world.
My Nan would just like to add a few words; 'angin's too gud for 'um!' I think I've got that right Nan
As my late Grandad said to me... String um up they wont do it again and others wont. Bloody lefty do gooders should be ashamed of what they have turned this once great country into. I would be a different story if it was on their doorstep!
A case in point..........."Let him have it"...... Derek Bentley was hanged because A) The prosecution didn't comprehend the fact that he was a few traffic cones short of a contraflow; B) The Jury didn't comprehend the same facts; and, 3) Did the Plod actually know this and withold the evidence (as used to be and still is common practice even with challenges to speeding cases) or; 4) Did they not even realise he was of 'simple mind'. AL.
If "crazy" folk are "not responsible" for their actions in a murder case ... who actually committed the murder? Someone else? If "crazy" folk are incapable of being found guilty of murder, does that mean the (non-) murder victim is free to get up, walk around and continue on with their life? Yes, I am very nearly - but not quite - trolling here. But I am genuinely confused* about what the difference is between a "crazy" serial killer and a "sane" one. * Go on, you know you want to - take that cheap shot. It'll add so much weight to your counter-argument, studmuffin :wink:
In the case of Bentley. the simple minded party, didn't commit the murder, but was hanged for murder.....The actual killer, Craig served 10 years and was released in 1963. AL
let him have it......... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case it was age that stopped the other from being hung.
As horrible as this case was, and ignoring the miscarriage of justice for the moment, I don't consider this type of case to be one of those that I advocate the death penalty for. The murder of a PC in the pursuit of his duty (by whoever) is a crime deserving of a life sentence - "life" in this case meaning for life. It does not meet my own personal criteria for capital punishment. I won't expect anyone to share or even understand my viewpoint though, and will spare all any further explanation :smile: *sound of cheering*
In my opinion, if it can be proved without doubt, that a child killer was guilty, then as far as I am concerned, their fate should be left to whoever can deal them........in whatever way is appropriate. AL.
This is about "joint enterprise". If two or more people set out to commit a criminal act together, such as a burglary, all of them may be guilty of all offences committed in the course of the enterprise. The prosecution does not have to prove which one of a gang of criminals committed each individual act. So you can be convicted of murder, even though it was your fellow-burglar who pulled the trigger; that was Bentley's situation. The defendant would have to persuade the jury that he had no idea his companion had a gun and was ready to use it to kill, to get an acquittal, and this would be very hard to do.
You're not a skinhead underneath that helmet are you Imola? :biggrin: BTW, how far back are you going for "once great"? TBH, these Olympics have shown that the country is still capable of greatness. (Just about the first time I can remember that).
