And some people think reinstating the death sentence is a good idea

[Zeuhl]

Here is another example of why killing people based on police evidence is a very bad idea.

<<Diaries that could have helped clear a man convicted of murdering his wife were kept by police for at least 17 years, it has been claimed.

Eddie Gilfoyle was sentenced to life in 1993 for killing wife Paula, found hanged while heavily pregnant in the garage of their home in Upton, Wirral.

He served 18 years in jail and was released on parole in 2010.

It has emerged that police held two of Mrs Gilfoyle's diaries which allegedly show she had suicidal thoughts.>>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...d-merseyside-16447836

[Zeuhl]

In that case Quiz, we would have two tiers of 'convicted murderers':

those we were 'absolutely sure about' and so achieved a conviction
and
those we were just 'reasonably sure about' but achieved a conviction anyway

On that basis those convicted in the second category might be looking for aquittal.

[joko]

oh agreed quizmonster... id string anyone up if they hurt my family ... but itd still be 'wrong' ... wouldnt stop me... but id know the whole time that they were getting their just deserts and i was getting revenge...

i suppose in some extreme cases its a kindness to the person... if they are totally deranged psychotic and a danger to themselves and evil... some want to be put out their misery...

[Cowtipper]

I know a lot of people that support the death penalty and very few of them (imo) could walk up and do the job themselves. I believe unless someone is willing to get their hands dirty then they are just blowing smoke. I don't support the death penalty because I am personally not willing to put a gun to a man's and pull the trigger while they were bound and helpless.

[Cowtipper]

Man's head... sigh

[jno]

oh I don't know. Cowtipper, plenty of ABers claim to be willing to open the trapdoor/throw the switch/squeeze the syringe themselves to kill evildoers they don't like. They may be salivating as they type this, it's hard to tell through my video monitor.

[Quizmonster]

I'm not salivating, I can assure you, J, but I WOULD do - without a qualm - whatever was necessary under the law of the land, presumably throw the trapdoor lever in Britain, in the circumstances I outlined...ie for the undisputable killer of a family member of mine.
I cannot think of a single good reason why Ian Brady or Ian Huntley, for example, are still alive. We never lacked volunteers to become executioners in the past, so there would always be someone to deal with the likes of them. My guess is that most people in the UK would agree with me, if they were asked seriously.

[Messi_Ten]

I'm sure you'd get loads of volunteer executioners. Would these be the same people who enjoy ripping defenceless animals apart.

Killing a human, the ultimate thrill!

[jno]

well, see here, QM

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1095020.html

definite hint of saliva there... (and not even in retaliation for a murder).

Personally, I don't think I could ever kill anyone, not matter how easy modern technology might make it for me. But my objection is on moral rather than personal grounds.

[Quizmonster]

Are you under the impression, Messi, that Albert Pierrepoint for example was a ripper of defenceless animals? Obviously, I've no idea how old you are but, if you've never heard of him, I'm sure Google will provide the information. Indeed, have you a shred of evidence that any public executioner anywhere at any time EVER ripped an animal?

As regards morals, J, I - a committed atheist - quite believe in the concept of "an eye for an eye", though not necessarily literally. Indeed, I'm often surprised at how selective Christians consider themselves entitled to be as regards their Bible. Matthew 18 v6 in the King James version reads,

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones (which believe in me) it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."

There doesn't appear to be any rooted objection there to capital punishment. The brackets are mine, of course, as I can think of no rational reason why children who DON'T believe in him should be fair game. I daresay there has been some concocted explanation to get round the meaning of 'offend', but I myself think that killing one of them is just about as grave an offence as it's possible to commit!

[EDDIE51]

In this case the police withheld the evidence so the jury did not see it and convicted him. If they had seen it he would not have been found guilty.
If there had been a death penalty an innocent man would have been killed.
I have seen people on AB say that with DNA evidence now the chances of an incorrect verdict are zero ! DNA would not have helped this guy to aviod conviction !

[jno]

QM, when I say my objection is moral I don't particularly mean religious, though if Jesus repudiated the eye-for-an-eye business I suppose his followers might reasonably do the same. I think any rationalist could come to the conclusion that if killing people is wrong then it's wrong for everyone.

An alternative reading might be that of the legal system, which allows it in self-defence, but not in vengeance. I think that comes closest to reflecting my own views.

[Zacs-Master]

Did anyone hear Mr G being I'm
Interviewed yesterday on Radio 2. Quite a strange relationship he had with his estranged wife. Not that that means he is either guilty nor innocent but worth listening to.

[Quizmonster]

J, I note that you don't refer to the quote supposedly FROM Jesus I inserted in my last response. It doesn't seem to me that he was "repudiating the eye-for-an-eye business" in that instance. Indeed, I cannot conceive how his words can possibly be taken in that way.
But what the hey! I could provide lists of other situations in which killing is quite clearly NOT wrong, too. I lived through World War II, for example, and - looking back upon it - I can see nothing whatsoever wrong with trying to blow Nazi bombers out of the sky. After all, they were trying to blow us off the earth...and THEY started it!
I think policemen threatened with firearms are perfectly within their rights to blow the gunman away if he refuses to surrender and remains a threat.

There's little point in adding to these two situations, though I could, as I'm sure you'll have got the picture on my viewpoint. That includes the belief that indisputable murderers with no conceivable justification for their act deserve to die. I'll leave it at that.