“No no no.

Any evidence and particularly DNA can be ommited or ignored if the police and the CPS think they have the culprit.”

“We don't need a death penalty - what we do need a prison sentences that mean what they say - ie life should be life not 15 years”

“You've got me on a subject that I feel super-strongly about here Mr. Pilot. I think I'll reiterate a point I made several months ago. That is, where the evidence is 100%, the perpetrator is a lunatic (Huntley, West, Hindley/Brady, Sutcliffe, Savile; you know who I mean) and has no place in society. Snuff him/her out. Why should these freaks survive? Why should they do their time at the expense of you and me then be released and be allowed to breathe oxygen? Zap 'em. End of.”

“newlad

Judges have to work within very tight sentencing guide lines so if sentences don't make sense, maybe it's the guidelines (issued by parliament) that are at fault.

When you read a tiny report in the HDM, for example, of a case that might have lasted two weeks it's impossible for the reporter to tell everything about the trial and the reasons behind the sentence.

Why not go to the Crown Court and watch a couple of trials and see how it all works? There is a web site called Court Serve that list all the cases, though there is no description of what the case is about. Still there are about 4 courts hearing criminal trials so you can always leave one and try another if the first one isn't interesting.”

“Sensational - couple of points. Firstly, none of those people were released. Secondly mental health issues are a very grey area aren't they? I know what you meant when you used "lunatic" but Ian Brady was judged to be mentally ill and you can't kill people for that.

Why he was ill and Myra Hindley was "evil" I don't know.

I don't want people like the ones you mention walking the streets either, but we cannot kill people in cold blood as a society. It makes us as bad as them, it is not a deterrent and as flossy says, mistakes can happen even with DNA. Maybe it's worse now because we think of DNA as being 100% proof. Look at Madeleine McCann - her parents were suspected because traces of her blood was found in the car. There are many explanations for it, but as soon as those magic initials were mentioned there was suspicion.”

“Whilst I agree with your sentiments(ish) I don't want them walking or breathing. Sorry but that's how I feel. Let's put it in perspective.
Let's call the accused 'Sensational Jenoh' to be impartial.

Judge: These crimes are the most heinous i've ever heard of Sensational Jenoh, your DNA is on all ten of the victims. We have witness statements from five people that say you are guilty. We also have masses of cctv and forensic stuff which categorically proves you are the perpetrator. Even your brief says you are. How do you plead?

Sensational Jenoh: Obviously guilty and I'd do it all again.

Now at this point I'd burn us at the stake. And you wouldn't?”

“NB. Also, we don't know that Madeleine is dead either, with enormous respect.”

“Not if the person was judged to be mentally ill. Somewhere along the line something has gone wrong. Somewhere there have been signs or actions that weren't picked up on. By the time it gets to an atrocity it's too late, but you cannot kill an ill person.”

“NB I didn't say Madeleine McCann was dead.”

“And I'm sorry for triple posting but just to preempt the "what ifs":-

When my friend (who lived in a well dodgy area) was mugged/broken into/had his car destroyed: I wanted to kill the people who did it.

When my house was burgled: I wanted to kill the person who did it.

When my brother and his friends were attacked: I wanted to kill the people who did it.

When my father was attacked: I wanted to kill the person who did it.

And yet I cannot believe that personal outrage is a good enough reason for state sanctioned murder.”

“The problem with forensic science is that it is 'science' and so far from perfect. And as such, can not provide the 100% certainty that should be required for the death penalty.

Of course, it gets us a lot closer to being 'certain' but can never be 100%.

I'm quite sure someone was arrested for the Jill Dando murder based on forensic science, who was later found to be innocent.”

“No.

DNA evidence can never provide sufficient proof.

As for the general capital punishment debate... no to that too. Humans are idiots and cannot be trusted.”

“To return a guilty verdict the jury have to believe the defendant to be guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That is why guilty defendants are found not-guilty and sometimes, although everyone involved 'knows' who the guilty party is, there isn't enough evidence even to prosecute.

You can have different levels of crime. You can't have different levels of certainty of guilt.

And who would plead guilty if it meant the death sentence?”

“Can anyone imagine what it would be like to be the person that administered the lethal injection, flicked the switch etc?
To take another life under any circumstances is barbaric.”

“Missfoodlove

I couldn't imagine working in an abattoir but plenty of people do.

I think when you say 'take another life' you don't actually mean that. You mean take another HUMAN life don't you?”

“Whilst i understand the feelings of the above posters I do not agree. ;0”

“Just had another look at this thread seeing as my great friend jenoh mentioned it. i cannot believe that Huntley was mentally ill. I am not accusing you of agreeing with this judgement of his condition jenoh.

Whilst I respect your comment of "I cannot believe that personal outrage is a good enough reason for state sanctioned murder." It seems to me the better alternative than (say in Brady's case) keeping him in a cell for the rest of his life at enormous cost. The way I see it he has forfeited his rights from the day he became a killer. Also, he wants to die so I'd give him that right at least, with a smile. If that makes me as bad as him I stand corrected.

But i believe that i aren't.”

“Unless I've missed it somewhere I don't think Ian Huntley HAS been judged to be mentally ill, has he?

Ian Brady has which is why he's in Broadmoor and my point is that we cannot kill someone who is judged to be ill in that way. It doesn't make us as bad as him. It makes us worse.”

“Unless of course he's a very good actor. You see, there must be many many evil people that have played the mentally ill card to great effect. Thus ensuring them a life of Riley and secretly they're just downright heinous. I know these experts are hard to dupe and all that but...”

“And now he wants to kill himself? The life of Riley maybe wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Are we suggesting that "evil" is a personality trait? I don't know how anyone that commits these high profile atrocities can be considered mentally healthy.”

“Hence they need to be snuffed out. Simples! And that life of Riley he's had might have not been so cushty if he hadn't played the mad card and being banged up with a few family orientated cons. Might have wanted to kill himself much earlier eh? just my opinion. Not looking for your agreement you understand.”

“Oh I know we're probably going to agree to disagree on this but it's worth having the discussion isn't it?

We are going round in circles a bit now though. My point is that it is morally wrong for the state to execute mentally ill people. You are saying they should be "snuffed out." We're going to end up invoking Godwin's Law if we're not careful (I know who you mean, I'm not wilfully misunderstanding).

As you say, it comes down to personal opinion and I understand why people in favour of capital punishment feel the way they do, I just don't agree.”

“I have just caught up with this thread and would like to put in my two penn'orth.
Firstly, I am going to state that I am very much on the fence with this one. When I read yet another news headline involving violent crime, child atrocities and other sickening criminal acts, I immediately wish the ultimate punishment was still in force. However..for one, I think a jury would be less likely to return a guilty verdict if it meant the judge would don the black cap, which means the accused would get away with it altogether. Another reason I would not like to see capital punishment return is because the accused's family would be punished perhaps more than the perpetrator.Could you imagine if it was your dearly loved one in the dock? It would be worse than standing there yourself. Not the strongest of arguments, I know, but still a valid one. Looking at it from the other perspective, I am only human, and as such feel a sense of outrage that people who commit heinous crimes have a life of riley inside prison. Dispatch them, and save the tax payer some money. They are not fit to live, anyway. Forensic evidence has evolved beyond all recognition since Timothy Evans was wrongly hanged in the Christie case, and even in the absence of dna etc in those days, who in their right mind would have sentenced a man such as he to death? Times, science and society have changed a lot since then, and that man would certainly not have been executed today if capital punishment was law. Finally, a lot of the names mentioned earlier are of people that are not necessarily mentally ill, but more than likely have a personality disorder, psychopathy probably. Those people are in a league of their own and have no conscience or empathy, are not mentally ill as such but are not normal either.( Now someone will come along and ask me what normal is, so I will say now that I use the word merely to differentiate from what would be accepted as abnormal).
In conclusion, I just don't know. Because I have doubts it would be sensible to stand against it being re-introduced, although I am sure it never will be.
Jolly good discussion, by the way :)”

“You always speak sense. Both of you I don't want them breathing the same air as me. That is my opinion and wish.”