Voted
Voted :chophead:
Carol M said:
I'm honored that I was part of your 3000 posts
A
Anonymous
Guest
The fors have it so far, have put a poll closing time on it now.
I think the problem with a true life sentence as oppose to the death peanlty is that the guilty party will always have hope that one day they will be free. The death penalty removes that.
I think the problem with a true life sentence as oppose to the death peanlty is that the guilty party will always have hope that one day they will be free. The death penalty removes that.
Done.
Voted
Nosa said:
Which is always useful when subsequently found innocent. Maybe if the prosecuting lawyers and judges had to face the same penalty if they're found to feck it up (or worse, falsify evidence) and put someone innocent to death they'd be a lot more circumspect about dishing it out....
Just sayin'
A
Anonymous
Guest
Stuart Truman said:
There would be alot more innocents still alive today if we did have the death penalty due to Murderous twats being allowed back onto the streets, In the past yes innocents did die by the gallows, in this day and age of DNA and genetics it is a lot harder to get it wrong, I would agree that if an innocent was hung and it was due to someone falsifying information or deliberatly trying to put an innocent in the frame then they too should receive the the same treatment.
What I am trying to say is that the modern day judicial system and punishment is not working and alot more innocents are dying as a result.
Just sayin.
These days murderers are much more likely to be convicted with certainty than they were when we last had the death penalty.
Forensics has come a long way since 1964/5 and the majority of murderers are convicted with pretty much 100% accuracy these days.
I think if we did bring the death sentence back then it should only be meted out if there is a conviction 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' which we can rely on being the case these days. If we can't then they shouldn't be killed until such time it has been proven undoubtedly.
Forensics has come a long way since 1964/5 and the majority of murderers are convicted with pretty much 100% accuracy these days.
I think if we did bring the death sentence back then it should only be meted out if there is a conviction 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' which we can rely on being the case these days. If we can't then they shouldn't be killed until such time it has been proven undoubtedly.
The death penalty is wrong and immoral in my opinion. There is no such thing as a cast iron verdict as a string of miscarriages of justice continue to prove. Police get lazy, cut corners, fabricate/destroy/tamper with evidence and the CPS and Police are always under tremendous pressure from all sides to improve conviction rates. An unhappy cocktail for a solid justice system.
It doesn't reduce offending either. America is one of the most violent societies in the world and yet many of its states still use execution. As most murders are committed by someone known to the victim (normally direct family) and done in the heat of the moment how would execution lessen this? It's a measure used in the main (although not exclusively) by despots/dictatorships and tyrants. It has no place in a civilised society.
Just my views folks. Don't want to fall out with anyone about it. Hope people respect them as I would those from someone with a different opinion.
It doesn't reduce offending either. America is one of the most violent societies in the world and yet many of its states still use execution. As most murders are committed by someone known to the victim (normally direct family) and done in the heat of the moment how would execution lessen this? It's a measure used in the main (although not exclusively) by despots/dictatorships and tyrants. It has no place in a civilised society.
Just my views folks. Don't want to fall out with anyone about it. Hope people respect them as I would those from someone with a different opinion.