Pity the poor convicted murderers…

You explain how when they kidnap it’s a crime, but when the state kidnaps and imprisons it’s not a crime.

Well I don’t believe prison is the right solution, in most cases but the most serious, so this collapses right there.
However the difference between kidnap and imprisonment is clear. The first things that come to mind are:
In prison everyone knows where you are.
In theory you are safe from harm.
There is a known release date except for the most extreme cases.
It is reversible in the event of a miscarriage of justice.

@mike – saw that but where’s the correlation setting all other factor aside? What were the murder rates pre the death penalty? What’s a reasonable projection without it being introduced? There’s so many other factors, gun access, socio-economic etc. If there were a definitive study I’d move off the fence 🙂
Last article I read suggested 3000 serious crimes by reoffenders within 12mths of release I think but don’t have a breakdown or know whether one exists plus the stats are only part of any story. Isn’t the lack of empirical data an issue for both arguments?
I’m a fervant supporter of rehabilitation and think we need to do way better on raising aspiration and improving pathways to education/employment for many who are tempted to commit crime.

@curto80 – I was going to reply but oob seems to have it covered (assuming you’re comfortable with prison as a concept).

The rates are based on the total figures across all states in the US, so the broad spread should reduce a lot of the bias.
Though the fact that the rates are still close in reality also shows that it’s not really a deterrent either, if you were looking for something to show it reduced murder then it certainly doesn’t.

Some figures on reoffending, again smaller sample size and has a number of other issues associated with it
http://criminology.research.southwales.ac.uk/features/reoffending/
Of 894 arrested for murder 13 were rearrested for a further homicide offence. 177 for a “violent” offence though the list includes breaking into a dwelling.
What does it say? parole and rehabilitation isn’t quie working?
Does it mean most should face the death penalty to protect from a small number? Does it mean we are getting punishment and rehab right and just need to do more? Does it mean there should be full life available?

I still don’t see an argument for execution in there.

DRD- ah, I see what you’re saying.

What you’re proposing is that we should have a higher standard of proof needed for the death penalty?

Would that be something higher than “beyond reasonable doubt”, the current highest level required by law?

“However the difference between kidnap and imprisonment is clear.”

Agree.

So isn’t the difference between extra-judicial killing and private individuals killing whoever they like also clear? If not why not?

@mike – cheers. Western Australian stats relating to 1984-2005?

MoJ 2014/15
A quick read reveals ‘proven reoffending’ is defined as an offence within 12mths of release and conviction within 12-18mths thereafter so quite a narrow definition nevertheless:
>390,000 proven reoffences were committed over the one year follow-up period, with those that reoffended committing, on average, 3.23 reoffences each.
>Less than 1% of all proven reoffences committed over the one year follow-up period were indictable which includes murder, manslaughter, rape and robbery.

Always a need to improve all inhibitors of crime however I was only discussing the arguments for/against execution of the most extreme offenders.

Well for starters it is irreversible.
But the difference between murder and execution is not clear, the analogy the kidnap= murder and imprisonment=execution does not fly I am afraid.

“So isn’t the difference between extra-judicial killing and private individuals killing whoever they like also clear? If not why not?”

“Well for starters it is irreversible.”

Aren’t both irreversible?

“the analogy the kidnap= murder and imprisonment=execution does not fly I am afraid.”

Agree. Imprisonment isn’t kidnap and murder isn’t state execution. They are different.

@cody – yes, a higher standard of proof and the most extreme cases. Would that negate some of the arguments against?
There is a wide range of proof in cases which pass the beyond reasonable doubt test. Video evidence of a murder or someone caught in the act is likely to be stronger evidence than oral testimony but both could pass the BRD test.

Thanks DRD.

deepreddave – Member

@cody – yes, a higher standard of proof and the most extreme cases. Would that negate some of the arguments against?

In my mind- no, it wouldn’t.

So far, all you’ve done is present to us how we’d reduce the possibility of miscarriages of justice.

What I’ve not seen from you is convincing arguments as to why we need a return of the death penalty.

So- why? What would bringing it back achieve?

So- why? What would bringing it back achieve?

It would make people who like others to be killed (meeting their own requirements) happier.

Agree. Imprisonment isn’t kidnap and murder isn’t state execution. They are different.

I didn’t say that, your logic has failed here.

I didn’t say that, your logic has failed here.

You said:

But the difference between murder and execution is not clear, the analogy the kidnap= murder and imprisonment=execution does not fly I am afraid.

…so the second half of your sentence is 100pc correct in my view. Your failure to justify the first half of your sentence makes me think you’re not sure about it yourself.

Either you can’t read or you are deliberately misquoting/misunderstanding. Just for the record. I am not going to bother engage with you on this topic again. I am happy to discuss and defend anything, but not with wilfull trolling. Thanks for your time.

Just for the record. I am not going to bother engage with you on this topic again. I am happy to discuss and defend anything, but not with wilfull trolling. Thanks for your time.

Can we have a button that adds this automatically?

Would save a lot of the time with the few obvious trolls on this forum.

@cody – yes, a higher standard of proof and the most extreme cases. Would that negate some of the arguments against?

I think that would actually cause more problems.

If you start having different grades of guilty then lawyers would be all over that in appeals.

You’d be asking a jury to not only determine if the defendant was guilty, but also decide exactly how guilty they were.

Jurors with some doubts might be tempted to decide that they were guilty (just to be safe), but not very guilty.

Conversely in particularly nasty cases jurors might be tempted to rule the defendant was extra guilty to try to influence the punishment they receive.

“So- why? What would bringing it back achieve?”

For me that’s the crux. If it were possible to be sure there was a significant net saving of life I’d be reluctantly in favour of the Death penalty.

But I don’t think it is and I’m not sure it ever really could be.

@cody – I’m exploring the arguments in favour to counter the reasons given against, rather than advocating either per se. Can you explain what imprisoning people and severely restricting their quality of life until they die achieves? How’s that working as a deterrent? Why don’t you think that money could be better spent on helping law abiding people, education etc?

@graham – Jurors and judges already make big decisions however the punishment could be a balance of proof and nature of the offence i.e. multiple/mass murderers caught in the act (simplistic to make the point). As to the weight of evidence I think we have a court hierarchy already set up who could consider this.
Having served on a jury I wouldn’t let one decide more than they do now! In fact I’d favour a basic exam before you served and having a legally trained person appointed to assist every jury with interpreting the law but that’s a separate discussion :).

@oob – it’s interesting if the defining factor is ‘lives’. What if the state executed a a mass murderer and 3 people benefited from their organs being transplanted so net result +2 lives – that ok? I’m not advocating farming criminals for organs but is a long term cost saving really impossible from a well legislated and run system involving capital punishment?

Ah- sorry DRD, I thought you had some answers. I was keen to hear your side. Apologies, I’ll move on.

Having served on a jury I wouldn’t let one decide more than they do now!

Exactly. And pushing the “how guilty are they exactly?” decision onto the judge doesn’t really solve the issue.

e.g. Jury finds the defendant guilty (beyond reasonable doubt) and then the judge rules that they are not “very guilty” as there is no irrefutable evidence. Hey presto, instant appeal.

@oob – it’s interesting if the defining factor is ‘lives’. What if the state executed a a mass murderer and 3 people benefited from their organs being transplanted so net result +2 lives – that ok?

Yup, the calculation gets morally difficult very quickly and I’m glad I’m not having to make these kinds of decisions.

is a long term cost saving really impossible from a well legislated and run system involving capital punishment?

I think it is because the cost of the legal appeals etc that I think most people would want to allow to condemmed people is far in excess of the cost of just locking them up forever. …but I haven’t worked it out.

@cody – snap :).

@Graham – BRD is no other logical explanation (say .91 probability). That wouldn’t be negated because a Judge decided the evidence wasn’t more compelling i.e. =>.95.

@oob – agreed :).

Been interesting, cheers.

BRD is no other logical explanation (say .91 probability). That wouldn’t be negated because a Judge decided the evidence wasn’t more compelling i.e. =>.95.

I’d hope “beyond reasonable doubt” is slightly stricter criteria than a 1 in 10 chance they are innocent. 😯

My point is that when you introduce “degrees of guilt” it is quite possible you will end up with more guilty people going free on appeal and more innocent people being wrongly convicted – which is very much the opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

On the flip side, how would you feel if the convicted murderer of your child was deemed “less guilty” and as a result got a lesser sentence because they weren’t caught on CCTV doing it?

deepreddave – Member

@cody – I’m exploring the arguments in favour to counter the reasons given against, rather than advocating either per se. Can you explain what imprisoning people and severely restricting their quality of life until they die achieves?

1) it is a punishment
2) it protects society from a criminal
3) if it turns out they were innocent, you can let them out, and attempt to help them rebuild their life.

@Graham – I think studies tend to suggest c90% when judges/juries are asked to put a number on BRD.

I don’t see why failure to meet an even higher burden of proof would negate a lower test. Our legal system produces inconsistencies now and it’s not less guilty, it’s that the weight of evidence is less – very different.

I think studies tend to suggest c90%

That’s frightening – and if true heavily supports the case people were making about wrongful convictions.

I don’t see why a second, higher burden of proof automatically negates the lower one…

It doesn’t “negate it” but would mean that appeal lawyers could point at it and say “Look although the jury found my client guilty, the judge clearly thought the evidence was inconclusive”.

In a similar but different version, take a look at the ”the bastard verdict” in Scots Law

Having served on a jury I wouldn’t let one decide more than they do now! In fact I’d favour a basic exam before you served and having a legally trained person appointed to assist every jury with interpreting the law

I’ve sat on a jury and we were specifically that it was not our job to interpret the law, that’s the judges job.

@ahwiles – If the only difference is the ability to overturn an injustice whilst someone is alive then I get that however you can’t reverse the enormous damage already done anymore than you can eradicate reoffending on release or fund whatever education/healthcare that could have been paid with the costs saved via capital punishment.

I can understand the justification for capital punishment in very extreme cases where the evidence is incontrovertible; after that it’s very complex and subjective.

@Graham – Camb Uni[/url] Interesting read.

@scotroutes – yep but ime it didn’t stop 2 jurors deciding based on facts’ never presented in court.

That is interesting, thanks.

deepreddave – Member
… however you can’t reverse the enormous damage already done…

reverse? no. compensate? possibly.

I can understand the justification for capital punishment in very extreme cases where the evidence is incontrovertible

personally, so can I. I would have no moral problem with the uk courts sentencing certain people to death, but i’ve got a bit of a vicious streak, so it’s probably a good idea that i have no input to sentencing guidelines.

if we’re only talking about ‘extreme cases’, we can’t even pretend there’d be a meaningful cost saving. how many cases a year would class as ‘extreme’ …? 1? 20? it’s a small number, by definition. the potential savings are small.

@ahwiles – ..i’ve got a bit of a vicious streak, so it’s probably a good idea that i have no input to sentencing guidelines. Haha. The older I get the less tolerant I become!

.. the potential savings are small. Inclined to agree.

All this talk about higher burned of proof or ‘in some cases’ etc. are still missing the point…

Go back a few pages, to my earlier comments, if you’re still even thinking down this line it means you’re still in one of the groups that thinks killing the criminal (whatever burned of proof) is the right response.

But I see no convincing arguments why it is the right thing to do, only that it’s possibly the ‘least worst’ because it might save money etc.

I don’t think killing people is the right response, nor do I think it can ever be the right response if you want to remain a just and enlightened society.