Forum menu
Guilford 4. Birmingham 6. Malkinson
In each of those cases the jury was sure that they were guilty. Piemonster explains it well.
Not to mention Derek Bentley, Cameron Willingham, Pat Sonnier, Timothy Evans, Reuban Cantu, etc etc. All of whom juries were very sure were guilty of the crimes of which they were accused, all of who's verdicts were subsequently found to be... Let's say shakey, at the very least.
I've said it before, but pardons are no good to the innocent dead.
I don't know about the others but I do know a bit about Derek Bentley as he was a local lad and his sister never stopped campaigning on his behalf until the day she died.
The jury weren't wrong about Derek Bentley, it was never claimed by anyone that he pulled the trigger. I think they only had to establish that he was there and it was a joint enterprise.
The state execution of Derek Bentley was utterly horrific and made a complete mockery of British justice. The only good thing to come out of it was that it massively helped the movement to abolish a barbaric medieval form of punishment.
I’ve said it before, but pardons are no good to the innocent dead.
Or those who were guilty, but fresh evidence later suggests that their crimes did not meet the bar needed for execution. Assuming there is a bar, and that it’s a high one. There would be a legal bar that needs to be met, yes? Or is this all at the whim of the mob?
Anyway… executing people for crimes they committed as a child… what other countries do that?
On this issue at least?
On this singular case and the tiny few others like them, yes I guess so. Where I probably differ with the right wing nutjobs is that it's not about vengeance, I just don't see the point in keeping him in prison for 70+ years. As others have said a whole life prison sentence, much of that probably in isolation, is a much worse punishment than a quick and painless execution. I reckon the idea of letting him decide whether to kill himself is probably the best compromise. Some might think that unduly lenient but I'd have no problem with it.
If I had to choose between a whole life sentence or death, I think I’d choose death… even if, or perhaps especially if, I was innocent.
a whole life prison sentence, much of that probably in isolation, is a much worse punishment than a quick and painless execution
It makes you wonder why so many American convicts on death row appeal against their sentences.
And this lot must have been gutted :
Biden gives life in prison to 37 of 40 federal death row inmates before Trump can resume executions
Maybe prisons in the United States are much more pleasant?
We are not going to be finding in 20 years time that he wasn’t guilty.
OK but THIS TIME we are totally sure. There's "ultimate burden of proof", right...?
My point is that once you have done something to this level where you are without doubt the person that did it then you have blown it.
Two elements here: Actus reus (did the guy do the physical act?) and mens rea (was the guy's mental state such that he deserves to be punished?).
In these cases, it's not going to be about the physical act. The difficulties will be around his mental state.
What’s relevant is in ANY cases where the death penalty is applicable for use is there a risk of an incorrect conviction that’s relevant.
I'm not convinced by this. I'm against the death penalty but imprisonment as a punishment also bears the risk that we imprison people wrongly - yet we continue to do it despite that risk. Guildford 4, Birmingham 6... People die in prison and you can't "undo" imprisonment either - a zillion pounds in compensation will never give you your time on earth back. 🙁
Where I probably differ with the right wing nutjobs is that it’s not about vengeance, I just don’t see the point in keeping him in prison for 70+ years.
Politely, I don't think that you differ to the 'right wing nut jobs here'. Some yes, they advocate eye for an eye, others give the 'what's the point/what's the cost critique' which you're advancing. Often they interchange/switch between the two.
it’s odd that so often the same people will agitate for the preemptive punishment of some supposedly suspicious characters to possibly save a handful of people from violent attacks.
Where was that suggested?
Where was that suggested?
I'm not sure it's been proposed on this thread, but it's certainly been discussed elsewhere. I posted a day or two back that to be properly safe from cases like this would require a loss of our "normal" freedoms.
Politely, I don’t think that you differ to the ‘right wing nut jobs here’.
Whatever. Doesn't change my opinion. I'm all for rehabilitation, understanding the reasons behind a criminal act, and applying the normal rules of humane consideration but in some rare cases that just doesn't apply, and this is one of them. Looking at it another way, what exactly are we to gain from keeping him alive in prison for the next 70 years? I hear the points about it showing we live in a civilised society but I don't really see what's so civilised about it.
People die in prison and you can’t “undo” imprisonment either
No, but imprisonment offers a chance of redeeming some freedom in the event of a failure of justice being discovered. But if they're dead already they have no chance regardless.
That and the direction of UK politics makes me particularly averse to it being an option.
Looking at it another way, what exactly are we to gain from keeping him alive in prison for the next 70 years?
Are you the guy that just retired (congratulations if so!) or am I confusing you with someone else?
But I don’t think keeping him in prison for potentially 70+ years is better than the alternative
I guess that will be the 'punishment' aspect of the concept of locking people up for a long time to entire life.
Death penalty ? Thats the easy option. Might as well try to make the argument that guns in the US are good, and if several thousand people have to die because they want to own them, then that is acceptable.
We must never look to bring back the death penalty and say, ok we understand X% are actually going to be found innocent later but we need it so ...
I suppose even the concept of locking someone up for the whole of their life is also as barbaric.
Looking at it another way, what exactly are we to gain from keeping him alive in prison for the next 70 years?
You've said that several times. yet say you are opposed to the death penalty. So what are you suggesting as an alternative?
Looking at it another way, what exactly are we to gain from keeping him alive in prison for the next 70 years? I hear the points about it showing we live in a civilised society but I don’t really see what’s so civilised about it.
Well it is certainly more civilised than killing someone in cold blood, or encouraging them to commit suicide, or whatever other scenario you can dream up.
Even a murderous regime like the current one in Moscow understands how difficult it is to justify legal executions.
Most state executions in the world are carried out by China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, so that's the sort of company that your views keep. Even the United States which has a huge population actually executes very few people these days.
It makes you wonder why so many American convicts on death row appeal against their sentences.
Some thoughts there. Firstly I think most prisoners are held on death row away from the main prison population. It's believed that as a result mental health is worse but there is not the same threat of physical violence. Not sure what effect that has and whether life on death row is comparable to life on a main wing.
Secondly many of these appeals are automatic. I certainly recall reading an article in the past of a convicted murderer who was ready to face the penalty but was going through constant date setting and then cancellations because of the automatic process.
Lastly - many US death row convicts go to their end still protesting innocence. That would be a tough choice to make, resigned to fate and yes get it over with vs waiting as long as possible for the evidence to arise that releases you.
Yes I think the first appeal at least is automatic but I am not sure it is obligatory for those with a death sentence to agree with their appeal. If dying is preferable to prison why would they agree? I have heard of appeals being denied but I have never heard of them being enforced!
I think someone suggested earlier that they would prefer to die that spend decades in prison especially if they were actually innocent.
This poor innocent man spent 48 years on death row. You have to assume that he didn't want to die.
Exonerated death row inmate who spent nearly 50 years in prison gets $7 million settlement
I hope he gets plenty of time to spend his $7 million
This man is mentally ill
Of course he is. No sane person goes around stabbing children and murdering them. Whats your point.
Looking at it another way, what exactly are we to gain from keeping him alive in prison for the next 70 years?
You may not think it civilized, but I believe it's more so than using state apparatus to kill someone because killing is wrong. In law, everyone guilty of murder has either pleaded guilty, or the state is sure that their guilt has been established. There isn't a special category of extra certainty.
This man is mentally ill
He doesnt seem to be under legal/medical definition. He was charged with and then pled guilty to murder. If he had been found to be mentally ill in a way which contributed to the murders then he would have been dealt with differently under diminished responsibility.
Maybe by legal terminology - knew what he was doing, etc. - but as a general position anyone that does what he did clearly is insane.
Without condoning anything - I can 'understand' a terrorist atrocity, in the belief it is an act driven by ideology. YMMV - mine might too - about the sanity of a belief that your god has told you to do it, but beyond that there's a reason, in their head at least.
This hideous act seems to have been without any motive other than to kill, that's not the act of a sane person.
Doubt he'll last 70 years in jail to be fair.
Why is the bar much lower in war than dealing with child killers?
Oh dear, no one has claimed it would have been unacceptable to kill Rudakubana had it been necessary to save the lives of innocent children.
You appear to be suggesting (I say "appear" because you simultaneously denying it) that Rudakubana's life should be terminated after the crime has been committed and whilst he is a prisoner.
And no, it is not acceptable to kill prisoners even in a situation of war. In fact it is a crime.
If he had been found to be mentally ill in a way which contributed to the murders then he would have been dealt with differently under diminished responsibility.
That's not correct. The bar for "diminished responsibility" as a partial defence to murder (ie that gets you down to manslaughter, and which still has a maximum life sentence) is much stricter than that. https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/mental-health-conditions-and-disorders-draft-prosecution-guidance
You've got to be completely ****ing Tonto to get diminished responsibility.
And after all, when most prisoners have mental illnesses and have had traumatic brain injuries, and when almost all of them have a mental illness and/or a neurodevelopmental disorder, and when 85% of prison officers end up dealing with prisoners with mental health problems every day, but barely any prisoners get mental health assessments...well, if we get into the business of looking too deeply into the mental state of murderers, where's it going to end? With burglars and muggers? Gentlemen, we have a reputation to uphold as Western Europe's most aggressive incarcerators! We lock up twice as many people per cap as Ireland and it makes us feel twice as safe!
https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2024/january/headline_1032674_en.html
https://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/publications/future-prison-mental-health-care-england/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/957501/incarceration-rate-in-europe/
I'll bet he ends up in a secure mental health facility
Mental health services in the UK - STRIPPED TO THE BONE
I'm not going to debate the rights,wrongs or whatever. But had we a decent system of social services in place, and not cut down system so the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg can save 1% on his tax bill, it is more than possible, this tragic event would never have happened.
decent system of social services in place, and not cut down system so the likes of Jacob Rees Mogg can save 1% on his tax bill
This is really a more relevant element of the Death Penalty debate, than the Death Penalty itself, or whether someone is totally obviously deserving of it according to the mob or courts.
How many fewer crimes (and the avoidable deaths and suffering elsewhere) would we have seen without austerity?
If he had been found to be mentally ill
I don't have enough of a grip of both the wide range of mental illnesses or the spread of those illnesses in the prison population but id be very surprised if there isn't a large portion population living with diagnosable mental health illnesses?
People woth mental health issues are hugely over represented in the prison population.
The cliche is prisons are full of the bad: the sad and the mad. Only the bad should be in there
id be very surprised if there isn’t a large portion population living with diagnosable mental health illnesses?
Ohhhhhh yesh
new study looking at the mental health of young male prisoners has found that more than 85% had a current mental health condition, however less than 3% had received a clinical assessment
https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2024/january/headline_1032674_en.html
it is more than possible, this tragic event would never have happened.
Is there any evidence of that? I don't doubt that mental health is massively underfunded but haven't seen any evidence that lack of money is the primary reason for the Stockport stabbings.
I can't recall anyone claiming that more money would have stopped the Yorkshire ripper or Ian Brady so why would it have stopped Rudakubana?
I think that sometimes there is a strong urge to blame someone even when there is no one to blame.
Edit. : Btw according to YouGov more than a quarter of people blame the current Labour government for the Stockport stabbings :
UK’s prison system is punitive as opposed to Sweden’s more effective rehabilitative system which seems to get way better non-reoffending (16% vs 26.8%)and they have ended up closing prisons due to not needing them as opposed to the U.K. never having enough prison spaces and having to do early release just to squeeze some more in.
Would be more cost effective to go down this route but tbh a country which can’t be arsed to fund its legal system properly probably can’t be arsed to foot the bill.
A proportion of the population blame them for anything. Weather, colour of the Walkers crisp packets, size of Mars bars, content of Asda's Christmas advert - you could deliver them a briefcase full of money and they'd moan about the denomination of the notes.
[removed as now clarified]
according to YouGov “…only 28% say the current Labour government has a great deal or fair amount of responsibility” for the Stockport stabbings putting them behind every one else on the list of people who might be to blame, including the tories and the mental health services, seems a more complete and accurate (dare I say less spun) take from that report than “ more than a quarter of people blame the current Labour government for the Stockport stabbings”
In the same poll a quarter of Britons now also falsely believe that Axel Rudakubana is a Muslim, an immigrant to the UK, and was motivated by religious terrorism so a quarter of Britons are probably morons who can’t follow court proceedings is also a reasonable take.
Eh? You are pulling me because I said "more than a quarter' instead of "only 28%"?!?
It doesn't matter which way you put it, it is ****ing absurd to blame the current Labour government for the Stockport stabbings.
But people need to blame someone.
I think we may be in agreement, apologies if I have not put that across well.
Why is the bar much lower in war than dealing with child killers?
As a state we actively support the killing of innocents and children in Israel and Gaza. We regard the Saudi regime as good friends despite their justice system.
I think Ernie’s point is, that sadly hundreds if not thousands of kids carry knives, come from troubled backgrounds, display violent tendencies and come to the attention of the authorities because of it. Most won’t go on to do what the Southport attacker did. Do we lock them all up indefinitely for what they might do?
My understanding is that some people were aware he had a particularly strong interest in violence, they were concerned enough to report him to prevent. Now lots of “kids” might carry knives but most don’t get referred to prevent. They aren’t carrying knives because they want to attack young kids, they are carrying them because they think it makes them look hard or they perceive they need it for self protection. There may well be things which should be done to stop them but IF it is as obvious as it is with hindsight that this was not a typical gang violence type knife carrier (and the fact he was twice referred to prevent suggests to me it was) then there MAY have been interventions possible to stop it. There is clearly an issue with the way prevent is set up that if you are planning an atrocity but are not driven by an ideology then they aren’t interested. As a country we’ve become far too focussed on Islamic terrorism, and ignored other societal risks. I wonder if he was white if he would even have been referred to prevent.
I’m not sure he is mentally ill. It’s an easy label to attach that anyone who would commit such a crime must be mentally ill. It helps us rationalise it. Certainly his one possible defence strategy might have been to go down that line - his lawyers will have considered it, and presumably commissioned reports. He’ll only end up in secure mental hospital like Broadmoor if he has a diagnosable / treatable condition. Perhaps one will emerge but none seem to have been highlighted so far.
In Belgium, prisoners can opt for assisted dying, instead of serving their sentence, a whole new can of worms..................
I’m not sure he is mentally ill. It’s an easy label to attach that anyone who would commit such a crime must be mentally ill. It helps us rationalise it. Certainly his one possible defence strategy might have been to go down that line – his lawyers will have considered it, and presumably commissioned reports.
As I said in a previous post, there's a very material difference between legal definitions and societal definition. As far as law is concerned it's "did the defendant know what he was doing, and if so, that what he was doing was wrong?"
As I said in a previous post, there’s a very material difference between legal definitions and societal definition. As far as law is concerned it’s “did the defendant know what he was doing, and if so, that what he was doing was wrong?”
Aye, I agree. It's unhelpful when people use terminology they're unfamiliar with as it muddies the water somewhat.
He is clearly behaviourally and emotionally dysfunctional, potentially with some processing issues but had a very clear understanding of he was setting out to do.
His father had already stopped him attacking pupils from his school and reported his concerns, sadly once again those charged with keeping the public safe should have some uncomfortable questions to face as to the whole chain of events that led up to this abhorrent act.
Inaction is a choice and one that must be justified.
What is will most likely to occur is a partisan argument about which political party is to blame.