Good riddance to this evil woman, Lisa.

[johnofgwent]

Indeed Cromwell the tampering of evidence would come under really trying hard in my book .  As I say though the bar (for a death penalty ) would have to be set which includes  taking out human error or human tampering of evidence forensic or other .

Yes. What DID happen to whoever authorised Freddy Patel to do a certain autopsy ...

[johnofgwent]

I don't know if you realise this but although a Labour party member, I am here on behalf of myself, representing my own views, and not as a spokesman on behalf of the Labour party.

Yes. I understand that


But I think I may have misunderstood your words.


When you mentioned "opposition wavering" earlier you weren't referring to Her Majesty's Loyal Official Opposition were you.


My mistake....

[Streetwalker]

Yeah have heard this argument before,and forensic services were outsourced to companies like Randox in Manchester which could've resulted if we still had it certain death for an innocent.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/09/6000-forensic-samples-re-examined-in-inquiry-into-manchester-lab

Indeed Cromwell the tampering of evidence would come under really trying hard in my book .  As I say though the bar (for a death penalty ) would have to be set which includes  taking out human error or human tampering of evidence forensic or other .

[cromwell]

As I say the bar has to be set at the right level and was the previous tampering (or miss diagnosis ) brought to light due to advancements ? I think you would have to be really trying hard to get the wrong guy on a murder rap these days with or without the death penalty .

Yeah have heard this argument before,and forensic services were outsourced to companies like Randox in Manchester which could've resulted if we still had it certain death for an innocent.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/09/6000-forensic-samples-re-examined-in-inquiry-into-manchester-lab

[Streetwalker]

That's just convenient wishful thinking. Of course it is still possible for someone to be falsely convicted. What if the forensic evidence is tampered with to start with for example? It has not exactly been unknown in the past for the police to tamper with evidence to ensure conviction.

As I say the bar has to be set at the right level and was the previous tampering (or miss diagnosis ) brought to light due to advancements ?  I think you would have to be really trying hard to get the wrong guy on a murder rap these days with or without the death penalty .

[srb7677]

The chances of 'sometimes killing the innocent'  has diminished over the years with the advancement of  forensic science  .

That's just convenient wishful thinking. Of course it is still possible for someone to be falsely convicted. What if the forensic evidence is tampered with to start with for example? It has not exactly been unknown in the past for the police to tamper with evidence to ensure conviction.

[Streetwalker]

If we only kill those who confess, no one will ever confess. If we start killing anyone convicted, we'll sometimes kill the innocent. Better for life to mean life. State murder is wrong.

The chances of 'sometimes killing the innocent'  has diminished over the years with the advancement of  forensic science  . If the death penalty was re-instated in the UK (I dont think it ever would be ) the chances of getting the wrong man or woman would if the bar was set at the right level be virtually nil .

A confession would be irrelevant to anyone but maybe their God .

[cromwell]

If we only kill those who confess, no one will ever confess. If we start killing anyone convicted, we'll sometimes kill the innocent. Better for life to mean life. State murder is wrong.

It is worth noting too that people however inexplicable it may seem to others have confessed to things they've never done.

[srb7677]

In the case of Lisa, she admitted the facts of the crime. The world is better off without her.

Every time a convicted killer is released and kills again, or kills a person in prison, that backs up the argument for the death penalty for murder.

If we only kill those who confess, no one will ever confess. If we start killing anyone convicted, we'll sometimes kill the innocent. Better for life to mean life. State murder is wrong.

[Barry]

I tend to agree with you pretty much. Although the likelihood of executing innocent people occasionally is the most damning argument against it for me, I do tend to buy into the argument that the state killing anybody makes us no better than them if we approve of that.

I guess there will be those who think of us as a couple of weak kneed liberals, .

Perhaps they will initiate a backlash against our lily livered do gooderism. 

In the case of Lisa, she admitted the facts of the crime. The world is better off without her.

Every time a convicted killer is released and kills again, or kills a person in prison, that backs up the argument for the death penalty for murder.

[srb7677]

Really ? I can't recall labour ever calling for anyone other than BNP members to be put to death.

I don't know if you realise this but although a Labour party member, I am here on behalf of myself, representing my own views, and not as a spokesman on behalf of the Labour party.

[srb7677]

life mean life,yeah when appropriate whilst I agree with the argument that innocents might be put to death I'm firmly of the opinion even when proven without doubt state sponsored murder is just as bad as the crime.

I tend to agree with you pretty much. Although the likelihood of executing innocent people occasionally is the most damning argument against it for me, I do tend to buy into the argument that the state killing anybody makes us no better than them if we approve of that.

I guess there will be those who think of us as a couple of weak kneed liberals, .

Perhaps they will initiate a backlash against our lily livered do gooderism. 

[cromwell]

Me too, though on occasions that opposition has been known to waver in response to particularly heinous crimes. I myself am not immune to the primitive emotional desire for revenge and to make the scum pay, so to speak.

The big problem with capital punishment - which it's proponents have no effective answer to and certainly no effective guarantee against - is the fact that sometimes people can be wrongfully convicted. If he or she is incarcerated they can be released with compensation. But you cannot release or compensate a corpse.

If we had a death penalty there will inevitably come a time when the state murders someone who is actually innocent. The only real defence of this - apart from silly denial of the possibility - is that it is collateral damage worth accepting to put down all the guilty ones who can never be set free to kill again. I just think life should mean life much more often to achieve the same thing.

Some cite the cost of that and the savings to be made just by killing them. But of course that means that the death of an occasional innocent person is essentially a price worth paying to save a bit of money. Which is actually morally obscene.

life mean life,yeah when appropriate whilst I agree with the argument that innocents might be put to death I'm firmly of the opinion even when proven without doubt state sponsored murder is just as bad as the crime.

[johnofgwent]

Me too, though on occasions that opposition has been known to waver in response to particularly heinous crimes.

Really ? I can't recall labour ever calling for anyone other than BNP members to be put to death.

[srb7677]

Firstly I am against capital punishment.

Me too, though on occasions that opposition has been known to waver in response to particularly heinous crimes. I myself am not immune to the primitive emotional desire for revenge and to make the scum pay, so to speak.

The big problem with capital punishment - which it's proponents have no effective answer to and certainly no effective guarantee against - is the fact that sometimes people can be wrongfully convicted. If he or she is incarcerated they can be released with compensation. But you cannot release or compensate a corpse.

If we had a death penalty there will inevitably come a time when the state murders someone who is actually innocent. The only real defence of this - apart from silly denial of the possibility - is that it is collateral damage worth accepting to put down all the guilty ones who can never be set free to kill again. I just think life should mean life much more often to achieve the same thing.

Some cite the cost of that and the savings to be made just by killing them. But of course that means that the death of an occasional innocent person is essentially a price worth paying to save a bit of money. Which is actually morally obscene.