The British should implement the death penalty

[DanaC]

Unfortunately, there have been several notable occasions where there was 'tons' of evidence. On one of those occasions a man spent almost his entire adult life in jail for a murder he did not commit.

Also: there have been a number of cases where compelling evidence for the defence was conveniently mislaid/witnesses ignored etc.

Sometimes these cases are politically motivated. The Birmingham Six being a classic example. Those men had a chemical on their hands which was supposedly clear and compelling evidence for their having used explosives. Turned out it was also clear and compelling evidence of their having handled a pack of playing cards. But ... it was a high profile case and politically fraught. A conviction was needed.

They were eventually cleared. But not before spending many years in prison.

There was a 'ton' of evidence convicting a babysitter of murdering her charge. She was convicted on the basis of expert medical witnesses and the compelling evidence given to the jury that the child's injuries were sustained by swinging his head against a bannister with equivalent force to him being hit by a moving car.
Turned out no such event had taken place. The child had an unknown medical condition which had caused the brain damage.

By chance, a doctor watching coverage of the case spotted in a photo of the child a slight turning in of one eye. When this was investigated (after three years of trying to get an appeal) It became apparent that the child had died of natural causes. The 'medical expert' who testified has also been implicated in several other miscarriages of justice including two mothers who were convicted of murdering their babies (it was said to be 'shaken baby syndrome') when it turned out that they had died of cot death. The 'expert' has since been struck off as a doctor.

Juries convict on the basis of the evidence theyre shown. There have also been several high profile cases whereby important evidence was simply not put forward; key individuals either not interviewed or their testimonies not included in the case; and outright tampering.

There is no such thing, in my view, of a totally safe conviction. Later appeals, or changes in forensic science and techniques can overturn an unsafe conviction at a later date; but that's cold comfort if the wrongly convicted person has already been executed.

One of the last men in Britain to be hung, was later (quite recently) cleared of murder.

[be-bop]

If we accept that the death penalty is no more then life should mean life no time off for being good, no more parole for cases like this

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by DanaC

There is no such thing, in my view, of a totally safe conviction. Later appeals, or changes in forensic science and techniques can overturn an unsafe conviction at a later date; but that's cold comfort if the wrongly convicted person has already been executed.

Sure there is. Example: quality surveillance video of a thug shooting a gas station attendant during a robbery. If there is clear cut proof such as that which implicates the perpetrator(s) then how can that not lead to a safe conviction? If it is absolutely clear with no reasonable doubt that the person(s) charged are in fact guilty of an exceedingly violent or heinous crime (murder, multiple DWI's, child molestation, rape under threat of death or bodily harm, etc.), then a bullet to the head and a 2'x2' piece of stone are cheaper than a lifetime in prison, and IMO more appropriate. People who prove themselves to be destructive to those around them and deem themselves through their actions to not be capable of living in "civilized" society should be dealt with swiftly and accordingly.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Sure there is. Example: quality surveillance video of a thug shooting a gas station attendant during a robbery. If there is clear cut proof such as that which implicates the perpetrator(s) then how can that not lead to a safe conviction? If it is absolutely clear with no reasonable doubt that the person(s) charged are in fact guilty of an exceedingly violent or heinous crime (murder, multiple DWI's, child molestation, rape under threat of death or bodily harm, etc.), then a bullet to the head and a 2'x2' piece of stone are cheaper than a lifetime in prison, and IMO more appropriate. People who prove themselves to be destructive to those around them and deem themselves through their actions to not be capable of living in "civilized" society should be dealt with swiftly and accordingly.

A fair point about the cctv...but how would that be legislated? Evidence that's clear enough for a jury to convict cannot then be graded into definate and not so definate proof. It's either enough to convict or not.


Sundae used the term state sanctioned killing. I think that is what I most abhor about the death penalty. I do not believe the state should have that kind of power. There is too much potential for it to be abused. If we'd have had the death penalty at the time, the Birmingham Six would have been hung. That would have been a political as well as a criminal execution. They were convicted unsafely because of political (and racial) concerns. That is far too much power for any state to have over its citizens.