Jimothy Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 12 Angry Men Ken, that's what you have just described. You watched the film, it wasn't at nightschool. Don't tell people what they did or didn't do just because you don't know about something.I know the story of Derek Bentley, just because you don't doesn't mean you can try and belittle Ken and tell he's mistaken when he clearly not.
Jimothy Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 I'm so sorry. It was just a bit cuntish, and doesn't paint you in a good light. I'm all for people taking the piss but that was just downright disrespectful.
Guest MattP Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 It was just a bit cuntish, and doesn't paint you in a good light. I'm all for people taking the piss but that was just downright disrespectful. I was wrong. I apologise.
Rincewind Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 I'm sure Matt was kidding. The outcome of the two cases were different although the same mistakes were made in the trial by eye witnesses I believe. In the Bentley/Craig case a quick verdict and conviction was wanted. It was not long after the war 1952? There was a lot of unrest amongst teenagers and Britain was trying to rebuild its industries housing etc. A lot of things were not brought up at the trial particually Bentley's mental age which was about 12. Craig was gun mad and on the night was upset as his brother had just been onvicted of armed robbery so he was not too keen on the old bill.
Zingari Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 Haha Matt P has been sent to the headmaster. i've heard he quite likes to bend over and be given six of the best just jestin matt
Jimothy Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 I didn't mean to come across quite so arsey, I'm 31 and I did my back in yesterday. That kinda shit shouldn't be happening! Anyway I just thought Matt was being a bit harsh on Ken, pretty much calling him stupid.
Strokes Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 I didn't mean to come across quite so arsey, I'm 31 and I did my back in yesterday. That kinda shit shouldn't be happening! Anyway I just thought Matt was being a bit harsh on Ken, pretty much calling him stupid.Maybe he was but I am quite sure Ken can defend himself. He ain't over the hill just yet, not like zing.
Charl91 Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 Wanting someone dead for murdering someone close to you is a perfectly reasonable emotional response, but it would be revenge. Not justice. I've never understood this argument. Who decides what is 'Justice' or not? How is locking someone up 'justice' but the death penalty isn't? Who;s to say that locking someone up isn't revenge? The two definitions of justice - "The quality of being fair and reasonable" and "The administration of the law or authority in maintaining this". For the former, I would say that it's more than fair/reasonable that if someone is a mass murderer, they should also suffer the same punishment. And as for the latter, if it becomes legal, then it is justice by definition.
Zingari Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 Maybe he was but I am quite sure Ken can defend himself. He ain't over the hill just yet, not like zing. oi!!! cheeky git
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 10 March 2014 Posted 10 March 2014 I've never understood this argument. Who decides what is 'Justice' or not? How is locking someone up 'justice' but the death penalty isn't? Who;s to say that locking someone up isn't revenge? The two definitions of justice - "The quality of being fair and reasonable" and "The administration of the law or authority in maintaining this". For the former, I would say that it's more than fair/reasonable that if someone is a mass murderer, they should also suffer the same punishment. And as for the latter, if it becomes legal, then it is justice by definition. A very fine post, and one I concur with, but why only mass murder, and not first degree murder?
leicsmac Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 I've never understood this argument. Who decides what is 'Justice' or not? How is locking someone up 'justice' but the death penalty isn't? Who;s to say that locking someone up isn't revenge? The two definitions of justice - "The quality of being fair and reasonable" and "The administration of the law or authority in maintaining this". For the former, I would say that it's more than fair/reasonable that if someone is a mass murderer, they should also suffer the same punishment. And as for the latter, if it becomes legal, then it is justice by definition. For me the idea of revenge is 'eye for an eye'. So if someone kills, they should be killed in reprisal. That seems like a pretty reasonable definition of the death penalty to me, and it reeks of illogic and emotion, neither of which is conducive to justice. If the death penalty is indeed part of 'the administration of the law of authority in maintaining this' is a country, then by legal definition it is justice. And you could make an argument that 'punishment fitting the crime' is apt too. However, my point regarding allowing an absolute punishment in a non-absolute criminal justice system where mistakes and corruption are still prevalent still stands.
DennisNedry Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 For me the idea of revenge is 'eye for an eye'. So if someone kills, they should be killed in reprisal. That seems like a pretty reasonable definition of the death penalty to me, and it reeks of illogic and emotion, neither of which is conducive to justice. If the death penalty is indeed part of 'the administration of the law of authority in maintaining this' is a country, then by legal definition it is justice. And you could make an argument that 'punishment fitting the crime' is apt too. However, my point regarding allowing an absolute punishment in a non-absolute criminal justice system where mistakes and corruption are still prevalent still stands. So in cases where the killer is 100% guilty beyond any doubt, would you support the death penalty in that instance?
Vacamion Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 So in cases where the killer is 100% guilty beyond any doubt, would you support the death penalty in that instance? All convictions are supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt. Who decides what 100% is?
Rincewind Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 The convictions are 100% reasonable doubt at the time of sentencing. However there can always be things turn up after that can overturn the verdict. I am against the death penalty but if I am sure of the guilt ie. a witness and knowing the killer, I would shed no tear if they were to suffer an acident in prison. Serving 30-40 years inside would also do.
ADK Posted 11 March 2014 Posted 11 March 2014 We have to remember that life sentences in the UK are very rarely that. I think I would rather we had harsher sentences before thinking of the death penalty.
leicsmac Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 So in cases where the killer is 100% guilty beyond any doubt, would you support the death penalty in that instance? Yep, as I have mentioned earlier in the thread, for very specific cases. For someone who has carried out a brutal murder involving an innocent person, shows no remorse, is clearly sane and clearly cannot be rehabilitated, yeah I see no reason in him staying in a cell at taxpayer expense for the rest of his life. Pray for his soul and flip the switch. I also think I mentioned Japans capital punishment system earlier too, which I think is a good model of how it should work (with the exception of the input of the victims families).
leicsmac Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 All convictions are supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt. Who decides what 100% is? At the moment, the legal system and judiciary. If 100% guilt cannot be reached (and it stands to reason that it can't, given human fallibility), I think that a special burden of proof not seen in other cases would need to be applied for cases where the death penalty is a factor. Can't reach that burden of proof but still give a guilty verdict to the standard burden of proof? Life imprisonment instead.
Harry - LCFC Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 We have to remember that life sentences in the UK are very rarely that. I think I would rather we had harsher sentences before thinking of the death penalty. This is my answer too. They get the tough punishment we feel they deserve but there is scope (to some extent) for reversing it unlike with capital punishment. Quite often the question gets asked "why are you against the death penalty?" Perhaps these people should also have to answer a question on why they are against life-long prison sentences, the effect of having the criminal's life taken from them is essentially the same for both after all. A very fine post, and one I concur with, but why only mass murder, and not first degree murder? Is it obvious that murder should be instantly met with the death penalty? I think the majority of people would be against that actually.
davieG Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 US man walks free after 25 years on death row http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26540604
Strokes Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 US man walks free after 25 years on death row http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26540604 See that proves death row works, he is free now.
AndWhat? Posted 12 March 2014 Posted 12 March 2014 US man walks free after 25 years on death row http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26540604 Simply cannot imagine how it would feel having 25 years of your life stolen from you.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.