The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Parliament Would Never Say Yes, But With The Increase In Savage Murders, If They Were To Hold A Referendum For The Return Of Capital Punishment Would The British Public Vote Overwhelmingly 'yes'?
126 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy-hughes
/// If that is the case, then there is your own repudiation of the Death Penalty - we don't execute mentally ill people. ///
But we do imprison them for life, instead of them receiving treatment in a mental institution.
I think you and some others are getting this all this wrong, we are not talking about every killer being put to death, only the type of killer that has been proven to have killed without a shadow of doubt.
It is a wonder some of you aren't complaining that the Westminster Bridge killer was killed outright without even given a trial to prove if he was guilty or not.
/// If that is the case, then there is your own repudiation of the Death Penalty - we don't execute mentally ill people. ///
But we do imprison them for life, instead of them receiving treatment in a mental institution.
I think you and some others are getting this all this wrong, we are not talking about every killer being put to death, only the type of killer that has been proven to have killed without a shadow of doubt.
It is a wonder some of you aren't complaining that the Westminster Bridge killer was killed outright without even given a trial to prove if he was guilty or not.
"Would you put to death a woman who murdered her abusive partner?"
If that was the sentence then yes. Remember, we're talking about murder here. Not manslaughter (diminished responsibility). Not manslaughter (no intent to kill). If a woman deliberately sets out to kill her abusive partner she is guilty of murder. The abuse does not weigh heavily enough (as it might if she was charged with manslaughter after killing her partner during a row) to avoid the normal punishment. She has other alternatives to escape the abuse and if she chooses murder she is just as guilty as anybody else.
If that was the sentence then yes. Remember, we're talking about murder here. Not manslaughter (diminished responsibility). Not manslaughter (no intent to kill). If a woman deliberately sets out to kill her abusive partner she is guilty of murder. The abuse does not weigh heavily enough (as it might if she was charged with manslaughter after killing her partner during a row) to avoid the normal punishment. She has other alternatives to escape the abuse and if she chooses murder she is just as guilty as anybody else.
AOG - // I think you and some others are getting this all this wrong, we are not talking about every killer being put to death, only the type of killer that has been proven to have killed without a shadow of doubt. //
That's precisely my point, there is no such thing as 'without a shadow of a doubt.
That's precisely my point, there is no such thing as 'without a shadow of a doubt.
AOG - // It is a wonder some of you aren't complaining that the Westminster Bridge killer was killed outright without even given a trial to prove if he was guilty or not. //
I am sure that in an ideal world, most people, including the person who shot him, would have wished that the killer had been the subject of a trial, but we don't live in an ideal world - such as a world where doubts have no shadows - do we.
I am sure that in an ideal world, most people, including the person who shot him, would have wished that the killer had been the subject of a trial, but we don't live in an ideal world - such as a world where doubts have no shadows - do we.
andy-hughes
/// That's precisely my point, there is no such thing as 'without a shadow of a doubt. ///
Do I need to point out to you again, the Lee Rigby murder?
That killing was carried out bt the two convicted on the street, in broad daylight, and viewed by a number of witnesses.
Are you saying that there is chance that they might have got the wrong killers?
/// That's precisely my point, there is no such thing as 'without a shadow of a doubt. ///
Do I need to point out to you again, the Lee Rigby murder?
That killing was carried out bt the two convicted on the street, in broad daylight, and viewed by a number of witnesses.
Are you saying that there is chance that they might have got the wrong killers?
SparklyKid - // That's precisely my point, there is no such thing as 'without a shadow of a doubt
Unbelievable, Lee Rigby ring a bell ????????????????????? //
You have to look at the wider picture, which goes beyond the apparent circumstances.
In the case of Lee Rigby, there is clearly a case for psychological instability, which as I have said, rules out execution.
And AOG puts forward the premise that all murders are mentally unfit to stand trial.
So no, there is not hard and fast 'He did it, he's guilty, execute him … ' - there is far too much potential for extenuating circumstances which may not come out at the trial.
You may be too young to remember, or know of the Rillington Place murders, where Timothy Evans was executed after conviction on the evidence of the person who quite probably (it remains unproven) murdered the wife and child for which Evans was hung.
When Christie was himself executed for other murders, Evans' body was exhumed from the prison grave and re-buried in consecrated ground - scant comfort for a man who was wrongly convicted and executed.
There will always be that potential for later evidence to be produced, which is a good reason to keep convicted killers alive.
Unbelievable, Lee Rigby ring a bell ????????????????????? //
You have to look at the wider picture, which goes beyond the apparent circumstances.
In the case of Lee Rigby, there is clearly a case for psychological instability, which as I have said, rules out execution.
And AOG puts forward the premise that all murders are mentally unfit to stand trial.
So no, there is not hard and fast 'He did it, he's guilty, execute him … ' - there is far too much potential for extenuating circumstances which may not come out at the trial.
You may be too young to remember, or know of the Rillington Place murders, where Timothy Evans was executed after conviction on the evidence of the person who quite probably (it remains unproven) murdered the wife and child for which Evans was hung.
When Christie was himself executed for other murders, Evans' body was exhumed from the prison grave and re-buried in consecrated ground - scant comfort for a man who was wrongly convicted and executed.
There will always be that potential for later evidence to be produced, which is a good reason to keep convicted killers alive.
You may be too young to remember, or know of the Rillington Place murders, where Timothy Evans was executed after conviction on the evidence of the person who quite probably (it remains unproven) murdered the wife and child for which Evans was hung.
What an arrogant assumption, what I would expect from you though.
AOG - // Are you saying that there is chance that they might have got the wrong killers? //
No I am not saying that - the clue is that none of my posts say that, because it is not my position (again!!!!!)
No-one would dispute that a murder took place - but the reasons and circumstances behind it have to be examined properly, and that is where, in my view, you can never find anyone guilty 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', because the action is not in isolation, there are unique circumstances in every single crime, and no-one can guarantee that every single actual or potential (and that is a really important point) circumstance has been discovered, analysed and found not to be of an impact on the punishment decided.
No I am not saying that - the clue is that none of my posts say that, because it is not my position (again!!!!!)
No-one would dispute that a murder took place - but the reasons and circumstances behind it have to be examined properly, and that is where, in my view, you can never find anyone guilty 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', because the action is not in isolation, there are unique circumstances in every single crime, and no-one can guarantee that every single actual or potential (and that is a really important point) circumstance has been discovered, analysed and found not to be of an impact on the punishment decided.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank30 mins ago
Vacuum Cleaner For Dog Hair...
Home & Garden30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.