Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
committed now and those committed prior to the abolition of capital punishment in the UK. But it's fine, it's not something we really need to have a serious discussion about- even the most disgusting MPs largely have no interest in the subject.
There was murder all over the shop for most of British history.
what an utter senile cretin
but I think it'd be more appropriate for police officers who commit murder.
I guess he did get smaug killed?
Young man kills two women in cold blood shocker
If you've ever read his telegraph blog (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/normantebbit/), the way that he openly communicates with the people who comment on his pieces is pretty impressive.
Bring back the death penalty? No.
That is all I have to add.
An interesting thing is that although Tebbit estimates that the number of innocent people that would be killed will not exceed 3 a year (based on something that is not quantifiable) he does not recommend what should happen if it is found out after an execution, that the state has in fact murdered someone who was innocent, which should be the major logical stumbling block to the concept of capital punishment......
i.e. If someone innocent is murdered in cold blood by a state procedure then it will be necessary to examine everyones role in that procedure....police, witnesses, forensic scientists, medical experts, administration, court officials, judge, prosecution and defence lawyers, and jury.
If it is found that any of their actions/inactions was responsible for the procedural murder then they will be partly culpable, and dependant upon what it was they did/didnt do, then punishment should be considered for them. (they will need to be warned of this beforehand)
If anyone is found to be malicious (false witness, or forcing a confession) then they should be up for some count of murder themselves. If they were negligent (forensic, admin or procedural or evidence interference) then they should be up for manslaughter.
If any of the Jury are suspected of harbouring predjudice, then they should be up for murder.
The above illustrates why emotional pleas for the return of state capital punishment for murder are illogical, because if one deplores the murder of an innocent so much then one must pursue the murderer (whether individual or procedure, until it can kill not more.......if it is the state that murders an innocent then it must be prevented from murdering again)
murder is either committed:
- by a nutter.
- as a crime of passion.
- as a calculated act by someone who doesn't think they'll be caught.
thus the 'deterrent' doesn't come into it.
I agree with you, but I wanted to try to be more succinct than I normally am. So I will steer clear of deterrent
quote "The hard fact is, as violent criminals know perfectly well, a credible threat that a man will lose his life unless he complies with a demand usually results in obedience." endquote
The massive difference there is the immediacy of that threat.
3 people previously convicted of killing someone and have been released have gone on to kill again.
OK, so the flaw with the current system is that the authorities did not estimate the threat of thesse people correctly and released them when they should not have done. (if someone has murdered and are still considered a risk to the public they do not have to be released)
Tebbit argues that less than 3 people would be innocently executed, by mistake, but he is miscalculating, because to catch those THREE killers that would otherwise be released again, he would have to be executing ALL convicted of murder, not just the exceptional few (remember the justice system could not identify the THREE that will reoffend).
IF you end up executing ALL convicted of murder then there would be two possible outcomes (A) you will end up executing more than THREE innocents per year (based on something unquantifiable, but correct imo (like tebbit estimates)) (B) the burden of proof will now be so great that the conviction rate for murders will drop........resulting in more murders staying free.
If you selectively only execute SOME murderers then there is no guarentee that you will get the THREE per year that would rekill on release (remember that at the moment the justice system cannot identify these THREE)
The problem with Tebbits argument, is that to stop those THREE killers that are released to kill again, he would have to have capital punishment for all the killers
Don't put too much effort into it creaky, I think most would be in agreement with you, the old guy's a bit of a crank...
or make himself appear to agree with Tebbit then afterwards pretend that he never agreed with him
never heard of the geezer
I mean, if we're talking about convicted murderers wrongly going free and killing random members of the public then it is bad (but as you point out, it isn't a solution).
But what if these are people going back into the criminal underworld and murdering other violent criminals who'd go out and murder innocents? I wonder how he'd feel then.
Norman Tebbit or Capital Punishment? Tough one.
Tebbit would seem to have more cache.
He could probably actually physically still beat them up were they to have a boxing match
ie pointless, just let him rant. He'll fuck off soon. And probably die soon after that.
as a wanted criminal anticipating a life sentence may be disinclined to use any means necessary to escape justice
Because if the only thing standing between them being locked up for a long time or freedom is a police officer, they are going to want to kill them. Even if that means the chance of being hung.
I don't know why we debate capital punishment, it is never coming back, the mechanisms are simply not there. Has any country ever brought it back after being gone so long?
is like engaging with your racist grandad.