The Death Penalty

[DynamicSpirit]

I agree there's no doubt that he committed the crime, but there is the question of responsibility - he committed the crime because society allowed him to do so.

He committed the crime because he chose to commit the crime.

 

[najaB]

He committed the crime because he chose to commit the crime.

Edit: Yes, that was sloppy wording on my part. What I should have said was "He was able to commit the crime because society allowed him to do so".

Any crime requires motive, means and opportunity. He could have chosen to kill his ex-partner all he wanted to, but he shouldn't have been given the opportunity to do so. There was a restraining order that prevented him from contacting her which he repeatedly violated yet nothing was done.

 

[edwin_m]

Ultimately to some degree it comes down to whether you have qualms about humans being killed as a special case against other animals. I'm afraid I just don't.

I would say I like animals more than I like people and if you can justify destroying animals over their behaviour then you can do the same for humans. You could keep a dog in a cage for the rest of it's life but instead we make ourselves feel better by giving a humane badge to killing it instead. I just don't have an issue extending that treatment to humans. This guy is going to cost society money for the next 40 years, there is no doubt he committed the crime in question, just end the matter now and save everyone the hassle.

The moral distinction here is that animals don't know they are going to be killed until it happens, or at least shouldn't if it is done humanely. If a person knows that under certain circumstances outside their control (such as mental illness) they will be put to death, it could put a big shadow across their existence. It might even cause them, especially if mentally ill, to think "well if that's so then I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb" and go off and kill somebody.

 

[Busaholic]

Lin and Megan Russell were savagely killed in Chillenden, Kent, in 1996. Michael Stone was later arrested, charged and convicted of their killings. He has always maintained his innocence, with the lack of forensic and other evidence connecting him to the scene, combined with other factors, convincing many criminologists that the conviction was unsafe, putting it mildly. Now Levi Bellfield, the notorious mass murderer serving two whole-life tariff life sentences, has admitted to the Russell murders, providing extremely detailed information including much never made publically available. If the death penalty had been in place, then Michael Stone would be long dead, an innocent man hanged.

 

[Butts]

Lin and Megan Russell were savagely killed in Chillenden, Kent, in 1996. Michael Stone was later arrested, charged and convicted of their killings. He has always maintained his innocence, with the lack of forensic and other evidence connecting him to the scene, combined with other factors, convincing many criminologists that the conviction was unsafe, putting it mildly. Now Levi Bellfield, the notorious mass murderer serving two whole-life tariff life sentences, has admitted to the Russell murders, providing extremely detailed information including much never made publically available. If the death penalty had been in place, then Michael Stone would be long dead, an innocent man hanged.

I believe in this case the Home Secretary would have exercised his prerogative of mercy and commuted the sentence to Life Imprisonment.

 

[najaB]

I believe in this case the Home Secretary would have exercised his prerogative of mercy and commuted the sentence to Life Imprisonment.

If the jury found him guilty and a judge determined that the sentencing guidelines supported imposition of a death sentence, what particular reason do you see for the Home Secretary to intervene?

 

[Butts]

If the jury found him guilty and a judge determined that the sentencing guidelines supported imposition of a death sentence, what particular reason do you see for the Home Secretary to intervene?

I believe the sentencing guidelines would be a lot stricter today if there was a Death Penalty with the advent of DNA and other advanced forensic techniques unimaginable 30 years ago.

 

[najaB]

I believe the sentencing guidelines would be a lot stricter today if there was a Death Penalty with the advent of DNA and other advanced forensic techniques unimaginable 30 years ago.

True. But you said that you would expect the Home Secretary to intervene if the death penalty had been imposed. What about this specific case informs that belief?

 

[GB]

Lin and Megan Russell were savagely killed in Chillenden, Kent, in 1996. Michael Stone was later arrested, charged and convicted of their killings. He has always maintained his innocence, with the lack of forensic and other evidence connecting him to the scene, combined with other factors, convincing many criminologists that the conviction was unsafe, putting it mildly. Now Levi Bellfield, the notorious mass murderer serving two whole-life tariff life sentences, has admitted to the Russell murders, providing extremely detailed information including much never made publically available. If the death penalty had been in place, then Michael Stone would be long dead, an innocent man hanged.

key points there are ”lack of forensic and other evidence”. If the death penalty was reintroduced then I’m pretty sure the burden of proof would be a great deal higher.

 

[birchesgreen]

Yes well miscarriages of justice would magically evaporate away of course.

 

[najaB]

If the death penalty was reintroduced then I’m pretty sure the burden of proof would be a great deal higher.

So you're saying that we don't currently employ and require the highest standards of evidence? That it's okay if the occasional innocent person gets convicted since they'll only end up in jail for life?

 

[birchesgreen]

So you're saying that we don't currently employ and require the highest standards of evidence? That it's okay if the occasional innocent person gets convicted since they'll only end up in jail for life?

Its ok, prison is a holiday camp remember?

 

[GB]

So you're saying that we don't currently employ and require the highest standards of evidence? That it's okay if the occasional innocent person gets convicted since they'll only end up in jail for life?

You are twisting words. I haven't said it's ok for an innocent person to go to prison.

 

[najaB]

Its ok, prison is a holiday camp remember?

Ah yes, sorry, I did forget that.

I think people who talk of "the highest standards of evidence" will be applied to death penalty cases don't fully understand how sentencing works in the UK. Evidence is used to determine guilt or innocence. The sentencing guidelines take into account the impact of the crime and attitude of the convicted person (e.g. expression of remorse, admission of responsibility).

You are twisting words. I haven't said it's ok for an innocent person to go to prison.

The idea that the death penalty would only be applied when the evidence is of "high quality" implies that we would apply the death penalty only when we're 100% certain that the person did it - without realising that implicitly means that someone convicted of murder would get a lesser sentence when we're not 100% sure of their guilt. (Assuming that in both cases they protested their innocence).

I'm seriously concerned if people can't see the problem with this position.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If the death penalty had been in place, then Michael Stone would be long dead, an innocent man hanged.

That makes a lot of presumptions about what the precise law would be if the death penalty were in place. More correctly, if the death penalty were in place AND the the guidelines for when it could be used mandated it for the particular circumstances of Michael Stone's conviction, AND there was no mechanism to provide further reviews of - for example - the evidence available and the safety of the conviction prior to applying the death penalty AND it turns out that Levi Bellfield's confession is correct (and not itself faked), then you'd be correct that an man who is innocent of that particular crime (but who had previously committed other pretty vicious crimes) would have been killed. The reality is though that talk of the death penalty being re-introduced is hypothetical, so we have no idea what other safeguards would accompany it if it were brought back. It doesn't seem unreasonable to presume that, in view of the finality of a death sentence, there would at least be some additional independent professional review of the evidence available whenever the death sentence was imposed.

Ultimately of course, it's true that miscarriages of justice do happen and that is a valid argument against the death penalty. I'm not sure that anyone here is really disputing that. The question is, whether or not that outweighs all the arguments in favour of the death penalty, given that - for each miscarriage of justice, there may well be hundreds, maybe thousands, of other people who are able to live in safety because the existence of the death penalty has either deterred or prevented crimes.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I note that early in the thread, Wayne Couzens was cited several times as someone who should receive the death penalty if it was still part of English law. I'm not going to plead for mercy on his behalf, but remind people that if you go into prison there are two things you don't want to be- firstly a sex offender; and secondly an ex-copper. Couzens is both of these, so I can't imagine the other inmates will have rolled out the red carpet for him.

 

[Busaholic]

I note that early in the thread, Wayne Couzens was cited several times as someone who should receive the death penalty if it was still part of English law. I'm not going to plead for mercy on his behalf, but remind people that if you go into prison there are two things you don't want to be- firstly a sex offender; and secondly an ex-copper. Couzens is both of these, so I can't imagine the other inmates will have rolled out the red carpet for him.

Yes and no: firstly, I cannot imagine that Couzens is not on a segregated wing, and may well be in effect in isolation. Secondly, with the psychology of a proportion of the prison population Couzens may be a person to look up to or even revere, in spite of his abhorrent behaviour and, presumably, nature. I'd hope the psychiatrists manage to engage with Couzzens in a meaningful way to try to understand what he considered to be his motivations, with the sole aim of helping to prevent other people becoming victims of narcissistic personalities, rather than 'understand' in the sense of 'excuse.'

 

[najaB]

The question is, whether or not that outweighs all the arguments in favour of the death penalty, given that - for each miscarriage of justice, there may well be hundreds, maybe thousands, of other people who are able to live in safety because the existence of the death penalty has either deterred or prevented crimes.

I'm yet to see any conclusive evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. The closest I've seen is that the homicide rate goes down for a period after an execution, but that's an issue if it's supposed to be an effect preventative mesure.

 

[MotCO]

Lin and Megan Russell were savagely killed in Chillenden, Kent, in 1996. Michael Stone was later arrested, charged and convicted of their killings. He has always maintained his innocence, with the lack of forensic and other evidence connecting him to the scene, combined with other factors, convincing many criminologists that the conviction was unsafe, putting it mildly. Now Levi Bellfield, the notorious mass murderer serving two whole-life tariff life sentences, has admitted to the Russell murders, providing extremely detailed information including much never made publically available. If the death penalty had been in place, then Michael Stone would be long dead, an innocent man hanged.

How did Michael Stone get convicted with such scant evidence? You can't blame the jury - the CPP should have weeded it out.

 

[Busaholic]

How did Michael Stone get convicted with such scant evidence? You can't blame the jury - the CPP should have weeded it out.

I wouldn't dream of blaming the jury. There is a lot easily available on the internet describing all the legal moves, which were considerable, to get the conviction overturned. There are similarities to Jill Dando's murder, in the sense of 'the powers-that-be' anxious to be seen as getting somebody to blame and be convicted. It was always plain as a pikestaff to me that the sad individual convicted of Dando's murder wasn't even capable of it, yet alone committed it.

 

[JamesT]

I wouldn't dream of blaming the jury. There is a lot easily available on the internet describing all the legal moves, which were considerable, to get the conviction overturned. There are similarities to Jill Dando's murder, in the sense of 'the powers-that-be' anxious to be seen as getting somebody to blame and be convicted. It was always plain as a pikestaff to me that the sad individual convicted of Dando's murder wasn't even capable of it, yet alone committed it.

Surely the problem is Stone's defence lawyers if the case is that weak? Despite this, he's been convicted by two different juries of the crime.

 

[Busaholic]

Surely the problem is Stone's defence lawyers if the case is that weak? Despite this, he's been convicted by two different juries of the crime.

If the person in the dock is someone who has previous convictions for violent offences and is unable to present themselves well, combined with prosecution lawyers knowing how to press the jury's buttons, there is quite a likelihood that jury might be easily swayed. The judge's summing up often suggests his/her viewing of the evidence too. The Irishmen convicted of the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings/murders were also convicted by juries who heard complete lies made up by violent police officers, and their appeals heard by Lord Denning were a travesty of justice with him suggesting police officers were always to be believed. He opined that the Birmingham Six deserved to be hanged. His obvious mental deterioration combined with his extreme old age should have seen him forced to stand down well before this. Kent Police's main evidence appeared to consist of 'if not him, who then?' combined with so-called 'confessions' to fellow prisoners by Stone, which are almost always known to be made up.

 

[Ediswan]

The Irishmen convicted of the Guildford and Birmingham pub bombings/murders were also convicted by juries who heard complete lies made up by violent police officers, and their appeals heard by Lord Denning were a travesty of justice with him suggesting police officers were always to be believed.

Plus some distinctly dody forensics.

 

[Busaholic]

Plus some distinctly dody forensics.

As was the case with Barry George (Barry Bulsara)

 

[SynthD]

Now we are saying that dna evidence is the standard we would require for a death sentence. Does that mean that when we had the introduction of dna evidence, it means an existing death row needs to be emptied? Does a future invention mean any past death sentences become insufficiently proven? And possibly mistaken?

 

[Edsmith]

Lin and Megan Russell were savagely killed in Chillenden, Kent, in 1996. Michael Stone was later arrested, charged and convicted of their killings. He has always maintained his innocence, with the lack of forensic and other evidence connecting him to the scene, combined with other factors, convincing many criminologists that the conviction was unsafe, putting it mildly. Now Levi Bellfield, the notorious mass murderer serving two whole-life tariff life sentences, has admitted to the Russell murders, providing extremely detailed information including much never made publically available. If the death penalty had been in place, then Michael Stone would be long dead, an innocent man hanged.

Yes although it has to said that at the moment we don't know for sure that Michael Stone is an innocent man, although I cannot understand how he was convicted given the flimsy evidence against him and I know many people have a similar opinion.

 

[Ediswan]

Now we are saying that dna evidence is the standard we would require for a death sentence. Does that mean that when we had the introduction of dna evidence, it means an existing death row needs to be emptied? Does a future invention mean any past death sentences become insufficiently proven? And possibly mistaken?

The US have been actively reviewing cases, not just capital cases, where DNA evidence was not originally available for some time. If interested, search for DNA exoneration.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Aren't we still in the position where DNA evidence isn't useful for distinguishing between identical twins?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Aren't we still in the position where DNA evidence isn't useful for distinguishing between identical twins?

It could be more complicated still.

They say DNA is unique to one in a billion people.

There's way more than a billion on the planet... but I'll let the statisticians argue that one out.

 

[Ediswan]

It could be more complicated still.

They say DNA is unique to one in a billion people.

There's way more than a billion on the planet... but I'll let the statisticians argue that one out.

"One in a billion" is used in reference to the DNA fragments used in the standard DNA profiling. The much larger proportion of the genome which is not part of that profile covers the apparent discrepency.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/dna-17-profiling