Bring back capital punishment?

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

Not really, for example, you need to prove it is use. CCTV can be notoriously shoddy quality. There is a whole subsection of forensic science all video forensics which is about making identifications. I've seen two experts disagree on the stand over the idenity of a man, filmed in broad daylight, on a 3chip minidv camera, with an experienced cameraman not twenty foot away.

Whats clear to you can be rathermore difficult to prove in a court of law.

Well if there's shoddy footage then there's doubt involved. Camera's can be reliable though. For example, those involved in the bombing of London and the footage of the young Bulger lad from a decade ago.

mycroft wrote:

Yes but as usual the point whistles far far far over your head.

Funny stuff.

mycroft wrote:

In the case the judge's rejected their claims that repudiated their statements and had been made under duress, and was statisfied it was the killers. While Irish public sympathy was there, there wasn't much in britain. Why under your system would they not have got the death penalty?

Under my system they wouldn't have got the death penalty as there is significant doubt that they did it based on their repudiation of their previous confession and the inconclusive evidence available. A 'death sentence' could be overturned. De Valera was set to receive the death penalty after the Easter Rising but the Brits overturned the decision due to the outcry, particularly in America, and he was given life imprisonment instead.

mycroft wrote:

You say there were doubt, but those doubts didn't appear in the judge's mind, and it's the judge decides the sentence.

It could be written into law that a death sentence can be overturned. Judges wouldn't need to be given absolute power.

mycroft wrote:

Hang on earlier it was about being a detterant now you're in eye for an eye territory. Which is it? Why do you think capital punishment is justified now.

I wasn't aware I moved away from suggesting it was a detterent nor was I aware I entered "eye for an eye" territory. Wanting those who take away life to suffer the same fate doesn't have to be 'eye for an eye' territory or 'revenge', it can be viewed as a punishment befitting of the crime especially since, as you yourself admitted, 'life imprisonment' doesn't mean for 'life' except in rare cases.

Oiche mhaith mycroft. :cool:

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Well if there's shoddy footage then there's doubt involved. Camera's can be reliable though. For example, those involved in the bombing of London and the footage of the young Bulger lad from a decade ago.

Yes but the footage wasn't the only thing used to convict them. And I'm merely pointing out that even being caught on camera (your definition of justification of proof of guilt to a degree that warrants execution) cannot be used as proof of absolute , cast iron, guilt.

You are non sequitur boy btw. dead duck makes the point about being caught on camera, you think that photographic evidence is enough justification for execution, myself and murphmurph point out how flawed that is, and you come back with some rambling point about Bulger and bombers.

What being discussed here is the fact that photographic evidence used as "clear" and "unequviable" proof of guilt to warrant execution, is a pretty piss poor standard of proof.

Under my system they wouldn't have got the death penalty as there is significant doubt that they did it based on their repudiation of their previous confession and the inconclusive evidence available. A 'death sentence' could be overturned.

So if I have this clear. In your magical la la la, someone can be found guilty enough to be given a prison sentence, but not guilty enough to be given the death penalty?

Do you even comphrend the foundation of our system of laws? The concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" being the tenant of how we find people guilty.

Aside from the turning onto it's head the entire foundation of how we find people guilty, the mind boggling confusion for jurors, the appeal loopholes that the "guilty just not getting guilty enough to warrant execution" verdict, would give (because in those instances, there is some suspicion even in the trial judge and jurors mind that the defendent may be innocent, thats automatic grounds for appeal) do you have concept how inane this suggestion is?

De Valera was set to receive the death penalty after the Easter Rising but the Brits overturned the decision due to the outcry, particularly in America, and he was given life imprisonment instead.

What does this tagent have to do with this?

Also you're wrong, there was no outcry from america, everyone was sentenced days after the rising and the first we heard of it, was when they started posting lists at Killmanhaim jail. How difficult would it be for news to travel the atlantic, and the outcry to begin, and news of the outcry to filter back, before people in dublin had even heard about the executions, DeV was spared by the british because of the potential outcry of their potential ally.

So whats your point, death sentences for those who deserve it unless the criminal is popular?

It could be written into law that a death sentence can be overturned. Judges wouldn't need to be given absolute power.

Wow ingenuis why didn't we think of that. What happens if the sentence is carried out and then new evidence appears! :rolleyes:

I wasn't aware I moved away from suggesting it was a detterent

You've shut up about for several pages. the whole america, western nation, death penalty, massive murder and prison population QED death penalty isnt a detterent, argument kinda made you drop that.

So what evidence do you have that it'd be a detterent?

nor was I aware I entered "eye for an eye" territory. Wanting those who take away life to suffer the same fate doesn't have to be 'eye for an eye' territory or 'revenge', it can be viewed as a punishment befitting of the crime especially since, as you yourself admitted, 'life imprisonment' doesn't mean for 'life' except in rare cases.

I'm sorry, killing someone because they killed someone, isn't "eye for an eye terrority" terrority because.......

why stop there. Why don't we rape rapists, and take stuff from burglers.

I would like to think as a society we've moved on from such primitive ways. So tell me again, what are your reasons for adovcating capital punishment?

murphaph

No matter how much mr. nice guy and toilet duck want to pretend that there isn't a tiny element of doubt (but beyond reasonable doubt in every murder conviction, there is one. This is reason enough for no death penalty.

Every time I've cited an example of some strange set of circumstances conspiring to convict someone, I was asked "how likely is that?". The answer is "extremely unlikely, but not impossible" so the death penalty is wrong in all cases.

As mycroft has painstakingly pointed out to you-you can't have two levels of conviction for capital crimes. They're either guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or they're not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Note I didn't say 'innocent', because they might be guilty even though they were not found guity beyond a reasonable doubt. There's that awkward word again.....'might'.

bonkey

deadduck wrote:

and as for bonkey, if your trying to say life in prison would cost the same as one bullet in the head, your nick suits you

Insults aside, I'll take this as confirmation that you are criticising others for not considering the financial factors that you know absolutely nothing about.

jc

bonkey

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

If there is doubt, the death penalty could be avoided.

If there is doubt, the death penalty would have to be avoided because you would be obliged to find the defendants not guilty.

deadduck

deadduck wrote:

and as for bonkey, if your trying to say life in prison would cost the same as one bullet in the head, your nick suits you

Kindly read the charter

and for ffs sake, will those of you who can't tell the difference between murder and the death penalty, get your head out of your arses

As above read the charter,the next inane/abusive comment from you gets a 3 week ban from here.

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

Yes but the footage wasn't the only thing used to convict them.

True but it's pretty hard to argue against it if you are caught on camera.

mycroft wrote:

You are non sequitur boy btw. dead duck makes the point about being caught on camera, you think that photographic evidence is enough justification for execution, myself and murphmurph point out how flawed that is, and you come back with some rambling point about Bulger and bombers.

Yourself and murphaph have not, in my opinion, pointed out how flawed it is. I have pointed out that camera footage, such as the footage used to reveal the identity of the Bulger killers and the London bombers, can be trustworthy. Bulger's killers were shown on camera taking the young Bulger lad away. Indisputable evidence. It wasn't a non-sequitur at all.

mycroft wrote:

What being discussed here is the fact that photographic evidence used as "clear" and "unequviable" proof of guilt to warrant execution, is a pretty piss poor standard of proof.

Could you please offer me a better form of proof than being caught on camera?

mycroft wrote:

So if I have this clear. In your magical la la la,

Real mature. :rolleyes:

mycroft wrote:

someone can be found guilty enough to be given a prison sentence, but not guilty enough to be given the death penalty?

The death penalty could be overturned.

mycroft wrote:

Do you even comphrend the foundation of our system of laws? The concept of "beyond reasonable doubt" being the tenant of how we find people guilty.

Yes. I'm also aware of instances in which Government became involved. I can recall de Valera making an effort to overturn the death sentence given to someone in Ireland when capital punishment was legal. It was not enough to save the person's life but I would be in favour of there being power to overturn the death penalty.

mycroft wrote:

Aside from the turning onto it's head the entire foundation of how we find people guilty, the mind boggling confusion for jurors, the appeal loopholes that the "guilty just not getting guilty enough to warrant execution" verdict, would give (because in those instances, there is some suspicion even in the trial judge and jurors mind that the defendent may be innocent, thats automatic grounds for appeal) do you have concept how inane this suggestion is?

I accept there would be difficulties of course.

mycroft wrote:

What does this tagent have to do with this?

The death sentence can be overturned.

mycroft wrote:

Also you're wrong, there was no outcry from america, everyone was sentenced days after the rising and the first we heard of it, was when they started posting lists at Killmanhaim jail. How difficult would it be for news to travel the atlantic, and the outcry to begin, and news of the outcry to filter back, before people in dublin had even heard about the executions, DeV was spared by the british because of the potential outcry of their potential ally.

Actually Dev was held in a different prison from other leaders, thus his execution was delayed. It's cited as one of the reasons he was spared.

mycroft wrote:

So whats your point, death sentences for those who deserve it unless the criminal is popular?

No.

mycroft wrote:

Wow ingenuis why didn't we think of that. What happens if the sentence is carried out and then new evidence appears! :rolleyes:

Arguments based around 'what if?' are poor. :rolleyes:

mycroft wrote:

You've shut up about for several pages.

What a load of guff!

mycroft wrote:

the whole america, western nation, death penalty, massive murder and prison population QED death penalty isnt a detterent, argument kinda made you drop that.

No it didn't. You must have missed this: "Random murders in America are irrelvant to Ireland. They have a major problem with gun crime and their popualtion is far larger than ours."

Your response was "America is the best example we have. Its a western world similar wealth with the death penalty."

I felt that was a pretty poor retort to be honest. I don't see America as a worthwhile example for the reasons I mentioned. I think it's fair to say crime was better dealt with in Ireland with the death penalty in place. That's a better example.

mycroft wrote:

So what evidence do you have that it'd be a detterent?

Society seemed safer when we had it.

mycroft wrote:

I'm sorry, killing someone because they killed someone, isn't "eye for an eye terrority" terrority because.......

Because it would be deemed the law and as long as people don't kill others, they've nothing to worry about!

mycroft wrote:

why stop there. Why don't we rape rapists, and take stuff from burglers.

Maybe we could castrate rapists? Taking stuff from burglars doesn't sound too bad.

mycroft wrote:

I would like to think as a society we've moved on from such primitive ways.

So would I but this is a society which films footage of people being "happy slapped". Society has gone to the dogs...

murphaph wrote:

Every time I've cited an example of some strange set of circumstances conspiring to convict someone, I was asked "how likely is that?". The answer is "extremely unlikely, but not impossible" so the death penalty is wrong in all cases."

Let's not delve into the realms of fantasy though.

murphaph wrote:

As mycroft has painstakingly pointed out to you-you can't have two levels of conviction for capital crimes. They're either guilty beyond reasonable doubt, or they're not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Note I didn't say 'innocent', because they might be guilty even though they were not found guity beyond a reasonable doubt. There's that awkward word "again.....'might'

As I have 'painstakingly' pointed out, people would not receive the death penalty if there was significant doubt.

I have suggested the death penalty for only heinous crimes. The murder of children for example. Ian Huntley would be someone who I would regard as meriting the death penalty for his despicable crime.

sceptre

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

As I have 'painstakingly' pointed out, people would not receive the death penalty if there was significant doubt.

People shouldn't be found guilty in the first place if there's significant doubt. I don't see the need for me to painstakingly point this out.

Mr.Nice Guy

sceptre wrote:

People shouldn't be found guilty in the first place if there's significant doubt. I don't see the need for me to painstakingly point this out.

Indeed, but as was mentioned above, there was some doubt about the guilt of the Birmingham Six.

Again, I'll point out I would only consider capital punishment for terrible crimes such as murders.

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Indeed, but as was mentioned above, there was some doubt about the guilt of the Birmingham Six.

Not in the mind of the convicting jury and sentencing judge, who gave them all the maximum permisable sentence under law. I dare say he would have sentenced them to hang if he had had that option available to him.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Again, I'll point out I would only consider capital punishment for terrible crimes such as murders.

The Birmingham Six were convicted of the murders of 21 people. How much more heinous a crime do you want?

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

True but it's pretty hard to argue against it if you are caught on camera.

yes it is. And I've proven it with a specific examples.

Yourself and murphaph have not, in my opinion, pointed out how flawed it is. I have pointed out that camera footage, such as the footage used to reveal the identity of the Bulger killers and the London bombers, can be trustworthy. Bulger's killers were shown on camera taking the young Bulger lad away. Indisputable evidence. It wasn't a non-sequitur at all.

The footage shows the killers, walking away with jamie not killing. Not killing. So they can be done for kidnapping by the footage, but not the murder.
So thats your analogy is flawed.

No london bomber has been convicted by the CCTV footage, in fact they're still waiting to be charged.

Could you please offer me a better form of proof than being caught on camera?

Why? I've proven numerous flaws to your "caught on camera" as irrefutable proof of guilt. The onus on is on you to provide proof.

But since you seem to be lazy, let me do it for you. DNA.

Real mature. :rolleyes:

Someone who doesn't grasp the concept of reasonable doubt, deserves to be talked down do.

It appears I have to do this again.

Okay Reasonable doubt is this. The prosecution must in a trial prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused commited the crime. If the jury or a majority of the jury fails to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they are instructed to acquit.

Now in your magical la la la land.

You think that a judge should if he's probably guilty they can give me life, but if they're sure he's guilty the death penalty can apply.

In reality we have two verdicts. Guilty and Innocent. You're now allowing a verdict of "definetly guilty" and "possibily guilty".

Of course if you're definetly guilty you can executed. But if you're possibly guilty you can't be executed. You're also sort of innocent, since there's some doubt.

So now we have four verdicts in Mr Nice Guy's skewed world. Definetely guilty (execution) possibly guilty (life) as well as "innocent" and "sorta innocent"

Now sorry to drag you back to reality. In reality definetly guilty people (people who's guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt) go to prison all the time. However we later find out that they are innocent. And they're acquitted. However because they were definetly guilty (in la la land) they're now dead. And back in reality, proabably guilty and sorta innocent people are acquitted because thats the way the system works.

Shall I explain it with finger puppets next?

You've yet to establish that you understand how the basic tennents of our legal system works, yet feel free to comment on "reforming" it.

The death penalty could be overturned.

I swear I'm beginning to feel like the monolith in 2001.

NOT. IF. THE. PERSON. HAS. ALREADY. BEEN. EXECUTED.

Yes. I'm also aware of instances in which Government became involved. I can recall de Valera making an effort to overturn the death sentence given to someone in Ireland when capital punishment was legal. It was not enough to save the person's life but I would be in favour of there being power to overturn the death penalty.

Seriously. What. What are earth is the point of the above? What possible reference does this have to the debate.

I accept there would be difficulties of course.

The "difficulties" you refer to is removing the central philosophical and ethical concept of the legal system

The death sentence can be overturned.

See above. Not if the execution has occured.

Actually Dev was held in a different prison from other leaders, thus his execution was delayed. It's cited as one of the reasons he was spared.

Oh look another pointless non sequitur.

No.

No? What kind of answer is that? Why raise DeValera's stay of execution because of public outcry then?

Arguments based around 'what if?' are poor. :rolleyes:

Sweeping generalisations about "what if's" are piss poor. Fact you'll end up executing innocent people if you bring back the death penalty.

What a load of guff!

really. Cause only when i called you on did you get round to bringing it up.

No it didn't. You must have missed this: "Random murders in America are irrelvant to Ireland. They have a major problem with gun crime and their popualtion is far larger than ours."

Whats population density got to do with it. Per captia statistics? I also cited to random murders in the UK that didn't involve guns.

Your response was "America is the best example we have. Its a western world similar wealth with the death penalty."

I felt that was a pretty poor retort to be honest. I don't see America as a worthwhile example for the reasons I mentioned. I think it's fair to say crime was better dealt with in Ireland with the death penalty in place. That's a better example.

So I'm not allowed compare a western nation presently with the death penalty and a massive prison population.

But you're allowed to compare the criminal and social problems facing ireland 50 years ago, and say authoritively without any facts or substance that we Dealt better with crime then, whhile ignoring the fact the socially, economicaly, we are virtually unrecognisable as a nation now as to then.

Society seemed safer when we had it.

Seems. Thats the best you can do. Society seemed safer. No evidence, no look at the expanse in population urbanisation, saying society was safer because we had the death penalty is like saying this rock keeps tigers away

[QUOTE
Because it would be deemed the law and as long as people don't kill others, they've nothing to worry about!
[/quote]

And if you're wronglyfull convicted? Ala birmingham six.

So would I but this is a society which films footage of people being "happy slapped". Society has gone to the dogs...

And how would happy slapping to stopped by capital punishment. Incidently groups of victorian toffs would regularly commit random beatings, the hellfire clubs of the 17th century. This is just another in a long line of random acts of violence by bored youth.

Let's not delve into the realms of fantasy though.

The way your mind works its like a trip to wonderland every time we talk alice.

As I have 'painstakingly' pointed out, people would not receive the death penalty if there was significant doubt.

I have suggested the death penalty for only heinous crimes. The murder of children for example. Ian Huntley would be someone who I would regard as meriting the death penalty for his despicable crime.

and as it has been tediously pointed out, if there is significant doubt then a accused must be acquited. Seriously if you can't grasp this, say so. It's a fundamental simple principle of law.

And theres little point debating this further if you can't understand that.

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Bulger's killers were shown on camera taking the young Bulger lad away. Indisputable evidence

...indisputable evidence of what? That they led him away from the shopping centre and brought him home safe and sound to his mother? You've managed to cite perhaps the worst example of grounds for executing someone that I could have imagined.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

The death penalty could be overturned.

Not after you're dead.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Yes. I'm also aware of instances in which Government became involved. I can recall de Valera making an effort to overturn the death sentence given to someone in Ireland when capital punishment was legal. It was not enough to save the person's life but I would be in favour of there being power to overturn the death penalty.

So now you want to see the executive branch of government involved in the judiciary. Have you any idea how democracies function?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Arguments based around 'what if?' are poor. :rolleyes:

Not if the 'what if' was from; 'what if the person we exucuted wasn't guilty?'

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Society seemed safer when we had it.

Ah right, in the days when we also lacked the second worst heroin addiction rate per capita of any major city in western Europe? You realise drugs account for an estimated 70% of all crime according to the Gardai.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Because it would be deemed the law and as long as people don't kill others, they've nothing to worry about!

Unless they're found guilty of a murder they didn't commit. Which has happened before and will happen again.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

As I have 'painstakingly' pointed out, people would not receive the death penalty if there was significant doubt.

If there was significant dout they would be found not guilty, full stop.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I have suggested the death penalty for only heinous crimes. The murder of children for example. Ian Huntley would be someone who I would regard as meriting the death penalty for his despicable crime.

Again, it's got nothing to do with the crime, it's the possibility, however slight that a miscarriage of justice will occur and an innocent person will be killed.

Mr.Nice Guy

murphaph wrote:

Not in the mind of the convicting jury and sentencing judge, who gave them all the maximum permisable sentence under law. I dare say he would have sentenced them to hang if he had had that option available to him

True but I've pointed out already that I don't believe judges should have absolute power and that death sentences could be overturned.

murphaph wrote:

The Birmingham Six were convicted of the murders of 21 people. How much more heinous a crime do you want

True and under my system they would have gotten life imprisonment rather than death as there was significant doubt about their guilt. Inconclusive evidence, repudiated confessions etc...

mycroft wrote:

yes it is. And I've proven it with a specific examples.

You haven't proven anything. Do you accept that the men caught on camera involved in the London bombing were involved or do you regard it as some sort of conspiracy?

mycroft wrote:

The footage shows them, walking away. Not killing. So they can be done for kidnapping by the footage, but not the murder. No london bomber has been convicted by the CCTV footage, in fact they're still waiting to be charged.

Why would proceedings centre around the footage ONLY? The footage is simply an excellent source of their guilt along with eyewitnesses, forensic examinations and so forth.

mycroft wrote:

Why? I've proven numerous flaws to your "caught on camera" as irrefutable proof of guilt. The onus on is on you to provide proof.

YOU were the one who labelled photographic evidence as "a pretty piss poor standard of proof" and I challenged you to name "a better form of proof than being caught on camera". So the onus was on you to answer my question.

mycroft wrote:

But since you seem to be lazy, let me do it for you. DNA.

It's nothing to do with laziness, I asked YOU a question. DNA as in forensic evidence? That's all well and good but it doesn't explain how it got there, whereas, as they say, a picture tells a thousand words.

mycroft wrote:

Someone who doesn't grasp the concept of reasonable doubt, deserves to be talked down do.

The idea that I could be talked down to by you! LOL!

mycroft wrote:

It appears I have to do this again.

What?

mycroft wrote:

Okay Reasonable doubt is this. The prosecution must in a trial prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused commited the crime. If the jury or a majority of the jury fails to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, then they are instructed to acquit.

This doesn't need to be explained to me.

mycroft wrote:

Now in your magical la la la land.

Very intelligent. :rolleyes:

mycroft wrote:

You think that a judge should if he's probably guilty they can give me life, but if they're sure he's guilty the death penalty can apply.

Could you explain this in English please? I've no idea what you are trying to say here. Cheers.

mycroft wrote:

In reality we have two verdicts. Guilty and Innocent. You're now allowing a verdict of "definetly guilty" and "possibily guilty".

My apologies but you lost me with your grammar in the previous comment.

mycroft wrote:

Of course if you're definetly guilty you can executed. But if you're possibly guilty you can't be executed. You're also sort of innocent, since there's some doubt.

Anyone know what he's talking about? Anyone?

mycroft wrote:

So now we have four verdicts in Mr Nice Guy's skewed world. Definetely guilty (execution) possibly guilty (life) as well as "innocent" and "sorta innocent"

I've no idea what you are trying to say. All I see is snide comments and someone putting words in my mouth.

mycroft wrote:

Now sorry to drag you back to reality. In reality definetly guilty people (people who's guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt) go to prison all the time. However we later find out that they are innocent. And they're acquitted.

So let me get this straight..in mycroft's world, people who are guilty go to prison...but they're actually innocent? And they get off? Wha?

mycroft wrote:

However because they were definetly guilty (in la la land) they're now dead. And back in reality, proabably guilty and sorta innocent people are acquitted because thats the way the system works.

What's la la land? What are you talking about?

mycroft wrote:

Shall I explain it with finger puppets next?

Coherent sentences would be a start...

mycroft wrote:

You've yet to establish that you understand how the basic tennents of our legal system works, yet feel free to comment on "reforming" it.

I wasn't aware I was in a law lecture.

mycroft wrote:

I swear I'm beginning to feel like the monolith in 2001.

NOT. IF. THE. PERSON. HAS. ALREADY. BEEN. EXECUTED.

What does this tangent have to do with this?

mycroft wrote:

I accept there would be difficulties of course.



The death sentence can be overturned.



Actually Dev was held in a different prison from other leaders, thus his execution was delayed. It's cited as one of the reasons he was spared.



No.



Arguments based around 'what if?' are poor. :rolleyes:



What a load of guff!



No it didn't. You must have missed this: "Random murders in America are irrelvant to Ireland. They have a major problem with gun crime and their popualtion is far larger than ours."

Your response was "America is the best example we have. Its a western world similar wealth with the death penalty."

I felt that was a pretty poor retort to be honest. I don't see America as a worthwhile example for the reasons I mentioned. I think it's fair to say crime was better dealt with in Ireland with the death penalty in place. That's a better example.



Society seemed safer when we had it.



Because it would be deemed the law and as long as people don't kill others, they've nothing to worry about!



Maybe we could castrate rapists? Taking stuff from burglars doesn't sound too bad.



So would I but this is a society which films footage of people being "happy slapped". Society has gone to the dogs...



Let's not delve into the realms of fantasy though.



As I have 'painstakingly' pointed out, people would not receive the death penalty if there was significant doubt.

I have suggested the death penalty for only heinous crimes. The murder of children for example. Ian Huntley would be someone who I would regard as meriting the death penalty for his despicable crime.

Why did you quote alot of my argument and not answer the points? Either:

1) You copied and pasted everything and forgot to answer the last part.

or

2) You liked my arguement so much you decided to post my points again and found them so good you decided not to debate them.

mycroft, while I am happy to debate with anybody as long as they are respectful, you will appreciate that I find it difficult to debate with somebody who cannot structure simple sentences and who comes Iinwith snide remarks.

Regards...

Wheely

magpie wrote:

So no great loss to Society then? We could free up a few council estates here using that logic.

Thats just disgusting. Thats all i have to say about that.

Mr.Nice Guy

murphaph wrote:

...indisputable evidence of what? That they led him away from the shopping centre and brought him home safe and sound to his mother? You've managed to cite perhaps the worst example of grounds for executing someone that I could have imagined.

Are you for real? You are aware what they did to him? From Wikipedia:

"That same afternoon, James Bulger (often called Jamie Bulger in press reports) from nearby Kirkby went on a shopping trip with his mother, Denise. Whilst distracted in a butcher's shop, Mrs Bulger (now Denise Fergus) allowed James to stand outside in the main concourse of the shopping centre. Within a few minutes, the two boys had taken James by the hand and led him out of the precinct. This moment was captured on a CCTV camera at 15:39"

murphaph wrote:

Not after you're dead.

No, before you're dead.

murphaph wrote:

So now you want to see the executive branch of government involved in the judiciary. Have you any idea how democracies function?

What makes you think I don't?

murphaph wrote:

Not if the 'what if' was from; 'what if the person we exucuted wasn't guilty?'

But this point has been addressed by me that there should be accountability and that judges shouldn't have absolute power over the death sentence. But you don't acknowledge this. Your mind is closed.

murphaph wrote:

Ah right, in the days when we also lacked the second worst heroin addiction rate per capita of any major city in western Europe? You realise drugs account for an estimated 70% of all crime according to the Gardai.

Yet comparing America is OK? A country with a far greater population and with huge problems relating to gun crime? Riiight.

murphaph wrote:

Unless they're found guilty of a murder they didn't commit. Which has happened before and will happen again.

Which is why capital punishment would only be used when there is indisputable evidence that someone committed a murder.

murphaph wrote:

If there was significant dout they would be found not guilty, full stop.

Hold on, you say above "Unless they're found guilty of a murder they didn't commit. Which has happened before and will happen again" so you acknowledge then that miscarriages of justice occur yet you find fault with my theory that capital punishment would only be used when there is no doubt of a person's guilt?

murphaph wrote:

Again, it's got nothing to do with the crime, it's the possibility, however slight that a miscarriage of justice will occur and an innocent person will be killed.

Miscarriages of justice cannot be prevented as you yourself acknowledged above. But what I have been saying is that there would be no death penalty if there is slight doubt of someone's guilt. Not all cases have doubt. People can confess to a crime, they can be caught on camera doing the deed etc.

I will add, you talk about miscarriages of justice, it is my opinion and the opinion of alot of other people, that we are having miscarriages of justice all the time with far too lenient sentences in this country.

The difference of opinion you and I have is that you believe that there will always be a slight chance that a person is not guilty, whereas I believe there are certain circumstances whereby a person is 100% guilty.

On a scale of 1-10 murphaph, how guilty do you think Ian Huntley is?

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

True but I've pointed out already that I don't believe judges should have absolute power and that death sentences could be overturned.

and once again what if they're carried out before they're overturned.

True and under my system they would have gotten life imprisonment rather than death as there was significant doubt about their guilt. Inconclusive evidence, repudiated confessions etc...

And this is so staggering blinding obvious. If there is significant doubt then they're acquitted.

You haven't proven anything. Do you accept that the men caught on camera involved in the London bombing were involved or do you regard it as some sort of conspiracy?

Non sequitur tangent. They were identified by video footage, they have been convicted because of it.

Why would proceedings centre around the footage ONLY? The footage is simply an excellent source of their guilt along with eyewitnesses, forensic examinations and so forth.

You're the one who claimed it was irrefutable proof.

It's nothing to do with laziness, I asked YOU a question. DNA as in forensic evidence? That's all well and good but it doesn't explain how it got there, whereas, as they say, a picture tells a thousand words.

And can be altered, taken out of context, and doesn't prove anything for example, you cited the CCTV footage of bulger, that CCTV didn't prove they commited the murder, just in your mind you assumed their guilt from it. There guilt was proven in a far more complex manner.

The idea that I could be talked down to by you! LOL!

Your lack of understand of the basic principles of law, is actually disturbing.

Could you explain this in English please? I've no idea what you are trying to say here. Cheers.

Okay. And this is the last time. Because you actually don't seem to understand how the courts works.

If a jury has significant doubt then they are instructed to acquit. People are not convicted because they probably are gulity. they are convicted because the jury is convinced they are guilty.

Now in your la la la land. You claim a death penatly would be commuted to a life sentence if there was significant doubt of their guilt. Correct?

What you completely fail to grasp is this. If there is significant doubt of their guilt the only verdict a jury can return is innocent. Thats it. Thats the central tennant of our criminal justice system.

The onus is on the prosecution to prove to the jury beyond any reasonable doubt and if they jury is left with any significant doubt the accused must be acquited.

Do you not see this?

Do you not understand that your "death penalties would be commuted to life imprisonment if there were suspicions about guilt" goes againist the grain of the philosphy of how our laws work?

No. If there were suspicions they'd be acquited.

In the case of the birimgham six in the judges mind there were no suspicions he was assured of their guilt, and wanted to give them the death penalty.

My apologies but you lost me with your grammar in the previous comment.



Anyone know what he's talking about? Anyone?



I've no idea what you are trying to say. All I see is snide comments and someone putting words in my mouth.



So let me get this straight..in mycroft's world, people who are guilty go to prison...but they're actually innocent? And they get off? Wha?



What's la la land? What are you talking about?



Coherent sentences would be a start...

Honestly even when I talk down to you I'm flying over your head

I wasn't aware I was in a law lecture.

Jane and jack's ladybird book of the law would be about your level.

Why did you quote alot of my argument and not answer the points? Either:

1) You copied and pasted everything and forgot to answer the last part.

or

2) You liked my arguement so much you decided to post my points again and found them so good you decided not to debate them.

mycroft, while I am happy to debate with anybody as long as they are respectful, you will appreciate that I find it difficult to debate with somebody who cannot structure simple sentences and who comes Iinwith snide remarks.

Regards...

:rolleyes: I hit tab, hit send and needed to edit it don't flatter yourself.

And seriously Mr Nice guy the actually basics, I mean the utter basic concepts of how our laws work appears to be far beyond you.

Wheely

This is cracking stuff.....right first and foremost, Mycroft, I wanna buy your rock...Im having serious tiger troubles. Secondly, Mr. Niceguy, your just plain wrong...obviously you dont understand how the justice system works but I wont explain the concept of reasonable doubt again cos, its just been done too many times. Ah fudge it, you cannot be convicted of a crime, any crime, as a custodial sentence deprieves you of your liberty, one of the most fundamental of all human rights, unless you a re proven guilty BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, there is no "beyond reasonable doubt plus camera evidence" ok, now dont be smart cos your side-stepping everyone's arguments all thread. Guilford four, birmingham 6, all that crap about disputed confessions and Irish outcry does not matter one single bit as the standard of proof, beyond resaonable doubt, was met. Now judges have to have the only power to dispense to justice, its their function in a democratic society, and in our society, its a function constitutionally prescribd to them. If you want the executive branch to be able to suprcede the judiciary ,its a violation of seperation of powers and a little dictatorial in nature, now i dont think you'd want that. You dont seem to be buying the guilford 4, birmingham 6 cases as good enough examples of the flaws in the capital punishment system so try the case of Timothy Evans, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of murdering his wife and child and out to death by hanging. " years later, same apt block the discovery of many more bodies killed by a man named John Reginald Halliday Christie at the famous address 10 Rillington Place. New evidence showed that it was Chrisite who murdered Evans' family and Evans was pardoned by the Queen 2 years after his death. Tell me what good that did him. Now tell me if he had have been sentenced to life imprisonment, what good it would have done him. If you asked Gerry Conlon did he wish that he had have been excecuted rather than spend 16 years in prison before his vindication as I think deadduck said he would, what do u think he's say? You are just plain wrong, niceguy, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and its LEGALLY BINDING counterpart tha Internationa Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both comdemn the death penalty, the US is actually in violation of international human rights law by practicing it. Would you like us to be in that category also? And as for not allowing the US as a comparison, they still havre higher prison populayion than us as a PERCENTAGE of their population so the fact that their population is larger is irrelevant. Now i do think that there are people out there that deserve to die, that deserve the death penalty, but the fact remains that there is no such thuing as a perfect system, and no-one can devise one not even you, its called human error. And if your playing with something as valuble and precious as human life then your system MUST BE PERFECT. But ew cant provide that, therefore the deatrh penalty is always wrong. "Better ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man convicted" This saying can be multiplied by infinity when discussing human life.

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

and once again what if they're carried out before they're overturned.

They wouldn't be. Would it be a race to execute people? No.

mycroft wrote:

And this is so staggering blinding obvious. If there is significant doubt then they're acquitted.

But this did not happen for the Birmingham Six. Of course if there is major doubt they should be acquitted that is not even up for debate, but if the likelihood is the person is guilty but this cannot be proven for definite, the death penalty would not be a wise option.

Non sequitur tangent. They were identified by video footage, they have been convicted because of it.

So you accept the viedo footage? That's all I needed to hear!

mycroft wrote:

You're the one who claimed it was irrefutable proof.

First of all I don't recall using those words, second of all I never suggested proceedings would centre around footage only.

mycroft wrote:

And can be altered, taken out of context, and doesn't prove anything

We might as well bring up Martians framing somebody. :rolleyes:

mycroft wrote:

for example, you cited the CCTV footage of bulger, that CCTV didn't prove they commited the murder, just in your mind you assumed their guilt from it. There guilt was proven in a far more complex manner.

NO, the footage was a key piece of the jigsaw along with eyewitnesses who spotted the murderers with the young boy. Footage is an essential component.

mycroft wrote:

Your lack of understand of the basic principles of law, is actually disturbing.

Your lack of understanding of the English language is quite disturbing.

Okay. And this is the last time. Because you actually don't seem to understand how the courts works.

mycroft wrote:

If a jury has significant doubt then they are instructed to acquit. People are not convicted because they probably are gulity. they are convicted because the jury is convinced they are guilty.

Tell that nice theory to the members of the jury who convicted the Birmingham Six...

mycroft wrote:

Now in your la la la land.

Actually I'm in Ireland.

mycroft wrote:

You claim a death penatly would be commuted to a life sentence if there was significant doubt of their guilt. Correct?

I'm suggesting that the power to overturn the death penalty could be put in place and that the judge would not have absolute power. Do you understand?

QUOTE=mycroft]What you completely fail to grasp is this. If there is significant doubt of their guilt the only verdict a jury can return is innocent. Thats it. Thats the central tennant of our criminal justice system.[/QUOTE]

A justice system that you earlier admitted saw miscarriages of justice! It ain't perfect is it?!

mycroft wrote:

The onus is on the prosecution to prove to the jury beyond any reasonable doubt and if they jury is left with any significant doubt the accused must be acquited.

Have I argued against this?

mycroft wrote:

Do you not see this?

I see perfectly clearly!

mycroft wrote:

Do you not understand that your "death penalties would be commuted to life imprisonment if there were suspicions about guilt" goes againist the grain of the philosphy of how our laws work?

So you are against my idea because it would "go against the grain of the philosophy of how our laws work"? So for bureaucratic reasons then?

mycroft wrote:

In the case of the birimgham six in the judges mind there were no suspicions he was assured of their guilt, and wanted to give them the death penalty.

Are you intentionally missing the part where I say I don't favour the judges having absolute power? Or is it just an oversight?

mycroft wrote:

Honestly even when I talk down to you I'm flying over your head

Pointless derogatory remark. :rolleyes:

mycroft wrote:

Jane and jack's ladybird book of the law would be about your level.

See above.

mycroft wrote:

:rolleyes: I hit tab, hit send and needed to edit it don't flatter yourself.

The guy who apparently "talks down" to me and he can't even operate a keyboard. LOL!

mycroft wrote:

And seriously Mr Nice guy the actually basics, I mean the utter basic concepts of how our laws work appears to be far beyond you.

Thanks for that Judge Judy. :rolleyes:

Wheely

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

A justice system that you earlier admitted saw miscarriages of justice! It ain't perfect is it?!

Yet your willing to entrust it with human life. A miscarriage of justice becomes all the more grave if it reults in an innocent persons death.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

So you are against my idea because it would "go against the grain of the philosophy of how our laws work"? So for bureaucratic reasons then?

Do you even know what bureacracy means?

And stop mincing words and editing what other people post to enhance your own bull. Your arguments full of holes and anyone reading this thread can see that.

Mr.Nice Guy

Wheely wrote:

Yet your willing to entrust it with human life.

I'm willing to entrust it with a punishment for those who rob innocent people of their life.

Wheely wrote:

A miscarriage of justice becomes all the more grave if it reults in an innocent persons death.

True. Which is why every effort would be made to ensure that doesn't happen.

Wheely wrote:

Do you even know what bureacracy means?

Yes. Do you?

Wheely wrote:

And stop mincing words and editing what other people post to enhance your own bull. Your arguments full of holes and anyone reading this thread can see that.

I've edited nothing. :rolleyes:

You're the one getting personal. The sign of someone who can't debate properly...

Wheely

Niceguy, you didnt answer one silngle shred of my first post which was where my substantive arguments were. When i asked you did you know what a bureacracy was I expected you to tell me, not ask me the same thing! Ill be more specific shall I? What do bureacracy and "the grain of the philosophy of how our legal system works" have to do with each other? And while you at it tell me what you think bureacracy means. (Do you honestly think the people reading this thread cant see thru these sort of tactics?) As for your word mincing, your "willing to entrust it with a punishment for those who rob innocent people of their life." well thats nice, seeing as YOU said it was flawd, but what I asked asked was are you willing to entrust a system you admit to being flawed with another human beings life? Please answer the question I ask from now on! Also waiting on a response to my first post which you conviniently skipped over. And what would these "efforts" be to ensure innocent people dont get excecuted? uh, uh, uh the cameras...maybe we should ensure that they cant be convicted unless their guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt..uh! You are saying nothing! Dont tell me I cant debate

Wheely

By the way if you attack my grammar/spelling like you did to mycroft, it just reinfirces my point. Its just so irrelevant

murphaph

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

You're the one getting personal. The sign of someone who can't debate properly...

It's impossible to debate with you. You don't understand the basic principles of our criminal justice system.

Mr.Nice Guy

Wheely wrote:

Niceguy, you didnt answer one silngle shred of my first post which was where my substantive arguments were.

It read like an essay. If you will put your main points to me I'll gladly respond but I'm not going to read an entire story.

Wheely wrote:

When i asked you did you know what a bureacracy was I expected you to tell me, not ask me the same thing!

I did tell you. Reread the post.

Wheely wrote:

Ill be more specific shall I? What do bureacracy and "the grain of the philosophy of how our legal system works" have to do with each other? And while you at it tell me what you think bureacracy means.

"Excessive official routine". Happy?

Wheely wrote:

(Do you honestly think the people reading this thread cant see thru these sort of tactics?)

What tactics? It's not my fault if you don't know what bureaucracy means. I know it's a big word but still...

Wheely wrote:

As for your word mincing,

An ad hominem argument. Do you know what that means?

Wheely wrote:

what I asked asked was are you willing to entrust a system you admit to being flawed with another human beings life?

I'm willing to have in place the required accountability for such a crucial measure.

Wheely wrote:

Please answer the question I ask from now on! Also waiting on a response to my first post which you conviniently skipped over.

I've been answering alot of people in case you hadn't noticed. Condense down your basic questions and I'll answer them. I've other things to do though than read a big long story.

{QUOTE=Wheely]And what would these "efforts" be to ensure innocent people dont get excecuted?[/QUOTE]

Ensuring no one is executed without there being indisputable evidence.

Wheely wrote:

uh, uh, uh the cameras

What is this? You are coming across like someone with a speech impediment. This is unnecessary.

Wheely wrote:

...maybe we should ensure that they cant be convicted unless their guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt..uh!

Or maybe we should only use the death penalty in rare instances?

Wheely wrote:

You are saying nothing! Dont tell me I cant debate

I'm saying nothing? You were the one writing!

Wheely wrote:

By the way if you attack my grammar/spelling like you did to mycroft, it just reinfirces my point. Its just so irrelevant

That should be "reinforces" not "reinfirces" and you forgot the apostrophe in "Its".

Mr.Nice Guy

murphaph wrote:

It's impossible to debate with you. You don't understand the basic principles of our criminal justice system.

Now there's no need for an ad hominem attack.

mycroft

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

They wouldn't be. Would it be a race to execute people? No.

So what we keep them around till they drop off themselves? Sooner or later you'll execute someone and afterward evidence acquiting them will emerge.

But this did not happen for the Birmingham Six. Of course if there is major doubt they should be acquitted that is not even up for debate, but if the likelihood is the person is guilty but this cannot be proven for definite, the death penalty would not be a wise option.

It actually flew over your head again didn't it.

If it is likely someone is guilty but it cannot be proven for definite, then the jury are instructed to acquit. Not find him "on the whole guilty", or "probably guilt", if the prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt the only option is acquital.

Guilt and innocence are moral absolutes in a court of law. There is no grey area, what you turn to two criminals and say "we proved the first fellow more guilty so we're executing him?"

So you accept the viedo footage? That's all I needed to hear!

Oh FFS. I accept that the video footage idenitifies them. However I don't accept that catching them on camera is indispuitable proof that they're guilty.

First of all I don't recall using those words, second of all I never suggested proceedings would centre around footage only.

No but you did say

Mr Niceguy wrote:

If you're caught on camera you clearly ARE guilty. It's not a case of being "fairly sure".

Clearly ARE guilty, which would suggest you think it is irrefutable and all you need.

NO, the footage was a key piece of the jigsaw along with eyewitnesses who spotted the murderers with the young boy. Footage is an essential component.

For the murder charges? Wheres you prove of this?

Tell that nice theory to the members of the jury who convicted the Birmingham Six...

Birminghan six were convicted in a juryless court.

And see you've just made my point for me. If the evidence presented to the jury that convinces them beyond reasonable doubt, they must enter a guilty plea. Later if the evidence is proved flawed a retrial could be ordered.

Actually I'm in Ireland.

mentally you're on a plane of your own.

I'm suggesting that the power to overturn the death penalty could be put in place and that the judge would not have absolute power. Do you understand?

And again. WHAT IF THE SENTENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN CARRIED OUT?

mycroft wrote:

What you completely fail to grasp is this. If there is significant doubt of their guilt the only verdict a jury can return is innocent. Thats it. Thats the central tennant of our criminal justice system.

A justice system that you earlier admitted saw miscarriages of justice! It ain't perfect is it?!

I never said it was. You're the one who wants to give

Have I argued against this?

Yes, yes you have your entire argument goes aganist this.

So you are against my idea because it would "go against the grain of the philosophy of how our laws work"? So for bureaucratic reasons then?

Its not just that you don't know what you're talking about, you don't know, understand or grasp what you're getting wrong.

Gwyllin

Capital punishment is murder. Someone who sentences a man do death for killing someone is himself a killer. There is not much more to say.

Wheely

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

It read like an essay. If you will put your main points to me I'll gladly respond but I'm not going to read an entire story.



I did tell you. Reread the post.



"Excessive official routine". Happy?

Don tell me to re-read the post since that, amazingly inspired I might add, definition for bureacracy wasn't there. Also yuo didnt answer my question once again, whats it gotta do with legal philosophy?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

What tactics? It's not my fault if you don't know what bureaucracy means. I know it's a big word but still...



An ad hominem argument. Do you know what that means?

Says the guy who gets soooo offended by personal crticisms. Post it up where i said i didnt understand the meaning of the word bureacracy. I merely asked you your understanding of it as you used it in an irrelevant context.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I'm willing to have in place the required accountability for such a crucial measure.

This is meaningless babble. I asked a simple question, flawed system, human life, u dont even say what crucial measure ur refering to!

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I've been answering alot of people in case you hadn't noticed. Condense down your basic questions and I'll answer them. I've other things to do though than read a big long story.

You havent answered anyone. Youcertainly havent answered anything iv asked you, you either answered a question with a question or dodged a relevant answer in some other simple blatantly transparent way. And are you actually using the excuse that you cant decipher large chunks of text, or a "story" as you put it to cover up for the fact that you cant respond to my arguments because i proved you wrong? Thats absolutely pathetic!! Would you like mommy to cut it up into little pieces for you? Unfortunately I refuse to pander to requests like this one, frankly i feel its beneath me, but its ok your silence speaks volumes and everyone reading this now knows that your posts thusfar have been full of s**t

Mr.Nice Guy

mycroft wrote:

So what we keep them around till they drop off themselves? Sooner or later you'll execute someone and afterward evidence acquiting them will emerge.

Why will evidence emerge acquitting them?!

It seems in your mind everyone convicted of a crime will eventually be acquitted!

mycroft wrote:

It actually flew over your head again didn't it.

I can assure you the only thing that flies over my head when dealing with you is your sad jibes.

mycroft wrote:

If it is likely someone is guilty but it cannot be proven for definite, then the jury are instructed to acquit. Not find him "on the whole guilty", or "probably guilt", if the prosecution cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt the only option is acquital.

True, but the evidence available varies case to case. That is the point.

mycroft wrote:

Guilt and innocence are moral absolutes in a court of law. There is no grey area, what you turn to two criminals and say "we proved the first fellow more guilty so we're executing him?"

Your whole argument is built around the "grey area". "What if the person convicted is innocent" etc.

mycroft wrote:

Oh FFS. I accept that the video footage idenitifies them. However I don't accept that catching them on camera is indispuitable proof that they're guilty.

So you think the men shown in the footage are actually innocent is that right?

mycroft wrote:

Yes, yes you have your entire argument goes aganist this.

Your proof?

mycroft wrote:

Its not just that you don't know what you're talking about, you don't know, understand or grasp what you're getting wrong.

I'm not getting anything wrong. Just because we have a difference of opinion on something you seek to ram your views down my throat.

Good luck with that. You'll need it.

Mr.Nice Guy

Wheely wrote:

Don tell me to re-read the post since that, amazingly inspired I might add, definition for bureacracy wasn't there. Also yuo didnt answer my question once again, whats it gotta do with legal philosophy?

Reread the post like a good lad. Your answer and definition are both there.

Wheely wrote:

Says the guy who gets soooo offended by personal crticisms.

They are the last resort for people losing an argument.

Wheely wrote:

Post it up where i said i didnt understand the meaning of the word bureacracy.

You asked me to give you a definition did you not? Don't tell me you were wasting my time?

Wheely wrote:

I merely asked you your understanding of it as you used it in an irrelevant context.

Ho was it used in an irrelevant context? And where is the relevance in you asking me for a definition of bureaucracy? What a hypocrite...

Wheely wrote:

This is meaningless babble. I asked a simple question, flawed system, human life, u dont even say what crucial measure ur refering to!

Please cease your personal comments.

Wheely wrote:

You havent answered anyone. Youcertainly havent answered anything iv asked you,

Reread the previous posts mate.

Wheely wrote:

you either answered a question with a question or dodged a relevant answer in some other simple blatantly transparent way.

Please offer proof of this unsettling and inaccurate comment on my character.

Wheely wrote:

And are you actually using the excuse that you cant decipher large chunks of text, or a "story" as you put it to cover up for the fact that you cant respond to my arguments because i proved you wrong?

Where did you prove me wrong? I asked you to condense down your points and stated I would answer them. Reread the post.

Wheely wrote:

Thats absolutely pathetic!! Would you like mommy to cut it up into little pieces for you? Unfortunately I refuse to pander to requests like this one, frankly i feel its beneath me, but its ok your silence speaks volumes and everyone reading this now knows that your posts thusfar have been full of s**t

Wth respect, remarks like this make you come across as inept and way out of your depth. Perhaps you'd be better off finding an MSN board in which you can engage in such petty diatribes to your heart's content?