National News PC Andrew Harper

[Peterdev]

A death penalty isn't an effective deterrent.

Terrorism seek martyrs, so maybe not in those cases as they’re fanatics.
It may well be a deterrent to those who fear the consequences of their crimes. For it to be more effective proof of guilt would have to be overwhelming.
Then there is a good argument that state execution would be cheaper and prevent the murderer from offending again. In the case of repeat murderers do they deserve another chance to kill again?

 

[Marked Ox]

Terrorism seek martyrs, so maybe not in those cases as they’re fanatics.
It may well be a deterrent to those who fear the consequences of their crimes. For it to be more effective proof of guilt would have to be overwhelming.
Then there is a good argument that state execution would be cheaper and prevent the murderer from offending again. In the case of repeat murderers do they deserve another chance to kill again?

There just isn't the evidence that it is a deterrent. There isn't definite evidence it isn't either tbf. Also it isn't cheaper.

If they are repeat murderers then they aren't likely to get another chance. What about those wrongly convicted of which there are plenty?

 

[Essexyellows]

There just isn't the evidence that it is a deterrent. There isn't definite evidence it isn't either tbf. Also it isn't cheaper.

If they are repeat murderers then they aren't likely to get another chance. What about those wrongly convicted of which there are plenty?

I refer back to the 3 Ticks.

Premeditated.
Zero doubt of guilt (caught at the scene, CCTV, DNA etc)
Heinous.

So your "bog standard" murderer would simply get a life sentence as normal.

Save an exceptional sentence for exceptional circumstances.

 

[Marked Ox]

I refer back to the 3 Ticks.

Premeditated.
Zero doubt of guilt (caught at the scene, CCTV, DNA etc)
Heinous.

So your "bog standard" murderer would simply get a life sentence as normal.

Save an exceptional sentence for exceptional circumstances.

And I point back to those wrongly convicted.

 

[Essexyellows]

And I point back to those wrongly convicted.

So someone like the person who murdered the school girls is at risk of being "wrongly convicted"?

I point back ....if there is pre-meditation, no doubt of guilt and an exceptionally heinous killing the option should be there.

 

[m]

Is the whole idea of it being a deterrent simply absurd?

Who really would have the following though process?

"I've decided that [name] must die, and it must be me that kills them. Assuming I'm likely to be caught, I think it would be worth surrendering my liberty for 12-25 years to achieve my task. I don't believe that [name] needs to die so badly that it is worth sacrificing my own life however."

I just cannot get my head around the whole idea of it being a deterrent, if anyone can, please help me out.

NB: I'm not interested in the 'deserve to die' type arguments, I understand those, even if I don't generally agree.

 

[Marked Ox]

So someone like the person who murdered the school girls is at risk of being "wrongly convicted"?

I point back ....if there is pre-meditation, no doubt of guilt and an exceptionally heinous killing the option should be there.

Ah, the mythical perfect system argument.

 

[Essexyellows]

Ah, the mythical perfect system argument.

In the case I mentioned the guilt is without doubt. Nothing "mythical" about it.

And, as I keep repeating, its not for all murderers for the very reason you mention.

Any doubt at all it reverts to a life term as current.

 

[Wallop]

In the case I mentioned the guilt is without doubt. Nothing "mythical" about it.

And, as I keep repeating, its not for all murderers for the very reason you mention.

Any doubt at all it reverts to a life term as current.

But how do you get beyond ‘any doubt at all’? In practically every case, there is an element of doubt. What if the accused states they are innocent even if there is overwhelming evidence against them?

If you look at the evidence presented in court over many years, there are numerous mistakes that have now been disproved by better forensics/police fit-ups etc. at the time, these would have been previously presented as slam dunk convictions based on the evidence presented.

There are also people who are prone to confessing for crimes they didn’t commit in an attempt to seek attention.

 

[Essexyellows]

But how do you get beyond ‘any doubt at all’? In practically every case, there is an element of doubt. What if the accused states they are innocent even if there is overwhelming evidence against them?

If you look at the evidence presented in court over many years, there are numerous mistakes that have now been disproved by better forensics/police fit-ups etc. at the time, these would have been previously presented as slam dunk convictions based on the evidence presented.

There are also people who are prone to confessing for crimes they didn’t commit in an attempt to seek attention.

So the person caught in the building, with the knife he took there with the victims at his feet .............where is the doubt?

Three thresholds crossed the option should exist.

Not for all, just in exceptional circumstances.

Although we are unlikely to ever agree.

 

[Eric Blair]

In the case I mentioned the guilt is without doubt. Nothing "mythical" about it.

And, as I keep repeating, its not for all murderers for the very reason you mention.

Any doubt at all it reverts to a life term as current.

Does mental instability count towards this at all?

Say someone was caught on CCTV standing over a dead body holding the knife after inflicting multiple stab wounds saying "I'm glad I killed the bastard". What if it can be said that the murderer had suffered years of abuse from the victim and was of unsound mind. Death penalty or no?

 

[Marked Ox]

In the case I mentioned the guilt is without doubt. Nothing "mythical" about it.

And, as I keep repeating, its not for all murderers for the very reason you mention.

Any doubt at all it reverts to a life term as current.

It is mythical as you are suggesting a perfect system with no mistakes. Our legal system has checks and balances and yet there are plenty wrongly convicted.

 

[Eric Blair]

I love and respect @Essexyellows but he's not a man troubled by nuance.

 

[Marked Ox]

So the person caught in the building, with the knife he took there with the victims at his feet .............where is the doubt?

Three thresholds crossed the option should exist.

Not for all, just in exceptional circumstances.

Although we are unlikely to ever agree.

What if the person caught in the building has the victim's DNA all over them and on the knife with the victim at their feet. Nobody else is seen coming in and out of the building by CCTV or witnesses. Looks pretty damning and a 'slam dunk'. But in reality they've moved the knife to try to help the victim and the attacker has escaped out of an exit/window which is in a blind spot for CCTV whilst no witnesses saw them.

 

[bazzer9461]

Does mental instability count towards this at all?

Say someone was caught on CCTV standing over a dead body holding the knife after inflicting multiple stab wounds saying "I'm glad I killed the bastard". What if it can be said that the murderer had suffered years of abuse from the victim and was of unsound mind. Death penalty or no?

I think it would have to depend on the KC’s for the prosecution and defence to argue it out if it. An be proved it was a case of “ I’m glad I killed the bastard “ and there was evidence of physical and mental abuse binge suffered then no the appropriate sentence would have to be amused and in that case and dependant on how bad the abuse was and yes I know abuse is abuse then maybe even consider a non custodial sentence, however if not was blatant murder then the hard argument would be death or life sentence and not many would want that burden

 

[Essexyellows]

Does mental instability count towards this at all?

Say someone was caught on CCTV standing over a dead body holding the knife after inflicting multiple stab wounds saying "I'm glad I killed the bastard". What if it can be said that the murderer had suffered years of abuse from the victim and was of unsound mind. Death penalty or no?

Nope - normal life sentence with the usual mitigation etc.

 

[Eric Blair]

Nope - normal life sentence with the usual mitigation etc.

So that being the case, KCs will always plead mental instability (even if unfounded) and so there will always be doubt (even if the court doesn't agree and says they are mentally stable).

In your system, you say if there is doubt then there is no death penalty so the incentive will always be to plead mental instability. That provides the doubt and therefore stops the death penalty.

 

[Essexyellows]

What if the person caught in the building has the victim's DNA all over them and on the knife with the victim at their feet. Nobody else is seen coming in and out of the building by CCTV or witnesses. Looks pretty damning and a 'slam dunk'. But in reality they've moved the knife to try to help the victim and the attacker has escaped out of an exit/window which is in a blind spot for CCTV whilst no witnesses saw them.

There would still be forensic evidence for the attacker escaping out of the exit/window be that prints,DNA, blood staining etc.

Investigations do tend to cover a much larger area than just the scene.

 

[Essexyellows]

So that being the case, KCs will always plead mental instability (even if unfounded) and so there will always be doubt (even if the court doesn't agree and says they are mentally stable).

In your system, you say if there is doubt then there is no death penalty so the incentive will always be to plead mental instability. That provides the doubt and therefore stops the death penalty.

In the case you hypothesised there would be evidence given of the abuse..........same as happens today.

 

[Essexyellows]

I love and respect @Essexyellows but he's not a man troubled by nuance.

This is true, my bubble is very black & white....

 

[Marked Ox]

There would still be forensic evidence for the attacker escaping out of the exit/window be that prints,DNA, blood staining etc.

Investigations do tend to cover a much larger area than just the scene.

Would there?

On the basis that they know who the shooter was for Lyra McKee's murder in Derry there was no forensic evidence to tie him to the gun used which the Police had. They also had film footage of the person shooting the killer shot. So there is no such certainty that there would still be forensic evidence.

 

[Marked Ox]

In the case you hypothesised there would be evidence given of the abuse..........same as happens today.

Abuse isn't always easy to prove or provide evidence for.

 

[Eric Blair]

Abuse isn't always easy to prove or provide evidence for.

Exactly. Anyone accused of murder pleads mental instability. Even if there is no evidence you have introduced an element of doubt and therefore get off capital punishment which is why the @Essexyellows plan doesnt work.

 

[OUFCGav]

Terrorism seek martyrs, so maybe not in those cases as they’re fanatics.
It may well be a deterrent to those who fear the consequences of their crimes. For it to be more effective proof of guilt would have to be overwhelming.
Then there is a good argument that state execution would be cheaper and prevent the murderer from offending again. In the case of repeat murderers do they deserve another chance to kill again?

And the murder rate is low in countries with the death penalty? no, quite the opposite on the whole.
The only "argument" is financial really, and that is not really one. There are lots of people you could kill off for financial expediency if you go that route.

 

[Essexyellows]

Abuse isn't always easy to prove or provide evidence for.

Plenty seem to be managing it decades after someone "famous" has died.........................

 

[Essexyellows]

Exactly. Anyone accused of murder pleads mental instability. Even if there is no evidence you have introduced an element of doubt and therefore get off capital punishment which is why the @Essexyellows plan doesnt work.

Pay attention.......... its being kept in the locker as the ultimate sanction for the premeditated and most heinous cases. Not every murder case.

When the premeditation, the intent and the outcome reach a threshold that there is no mitigation for then down the road you go for a snifter of inert gas.

 

[Eric Blair]

Pay attention.......... its being kept in the locker as the ultimate sanction for the premeditated and most heinous cases. Not every murder case.

When the premeditation, the intent and the outcome reach a threshold that there is no mitigation for then down the road you go for a snifter of inert gas.

Okay. So if you are mentally ill but you meet the premeditation, intent and outcome criteria then you get hanged (or whatever). Is that your system?

 

[Sheik Djibouti]

This is true, my bubble is very black & white....

That would explain why you can't see beyond it.

 

[chuckbert]

To me the issue is a different one. State-sponsored killing is a slippery slope. I’ve never understood why there is an overlap between those who want minimal government and those who want a death penalty. Seems like massive authoritarian overreach to me.

 

[Eric Blair]

To me the issue is a different one. State-sponsored killing is a slippery slope. I’ve never understood why there is an overlap between those who want minimal government and those who want a death penalty. Seems like massive authoritarian overreach to me.

That is a very key point imho.