The Death Penalty

[DynamicSpirit]

Then don't serve on a jury if that became the case.

Would people have the choice? My first thought was the same as yours - that if you feel you couldn't convict someone you believe is guilty because you object to the potential punishment, then you shouldn't be on the jury. But then I googled to see what the rules are, and as far as I can tell there doesn't seem to be any option for people to object to jury service on ethical grounds. You can ask not to serve if there's some practical reason why you can't serve on certain dates but that seems to be it.

At any rate, I would think that if we ever did have the death penalty again, then you'd need to have a mechanism so people could opt out of doing jury service if they object to it.

 

[Busaholic]

Would people have the choice? My first thought was the same as yours - that if you feel you couldn't convict someone you believe is guilty because you object to the potential punishment, then you shouldn't be on the jury. But then I googled to see what the rules are, and as far as I can tell there doesn't seem to be any option for people to object to jury service on ethical grounds. You can ask not to serve if there's some practical reason why you can't serve on certain dates but that seems to be it.

You're right, you have no choice in the matter. If you get excused on one occasion for work or health reasons you are liable to be called again at a later date.

 

[ainsworth74]

If you do not wish to convict then do not convict. A jury can reach whatever decision it wishes. Even where the evidence is overwhelming (say there was crystal clear HD CCTV with sound of the murderer walking up to the victim and saying "I [insert name] am about to kill you" before then killing them) if a jury decides not to convict that is their right. And there's nothing that can be done to stop them.

So if you were called to serve on a jury in a capital case even if the evidence was overwhelming there is no reason you couldn't still vote not to convict.

 

[Busaholic]

If you do not wish to convict then do not convict. A jury can reach whatever decision it wishes. Even where the evidence is overwhelming (say there was crystal clear HD CCTV with sound of the murderer walking up to the victim and saying "I [insert name] am about to kill you" before then killing them) if a jury decides not to convict that is their right. And there's nothing that can be done to stop them.

So if you were called to serve on a jury in a capital case even if the evidence was overwhelming there is no reason you couldn't still vote not to convict.

Majority jury verdicts have been introduced since the days of capital punishment, so if you had one, even two, members of the jury whose verdict was different from the other jurists then it wouldn't necessarily prevent the majority prevailing. I suspect that a judge would only with reluctance accept a majority verdict in a murder trial, and then probably only if one member rather than the permitted two, disagreed.

 

[AlterEgo]

You're right, you have no choice in the matter. If you get excused on one occasion for work or health reasons you are liable to be called again at a later date.

You certainly can object to being on a jury for a specific trial.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not a legal expert but, after some reading around, I'm fairly sure your civic duty as a juror is to determine whether, based on the evidence available, the person did or did not commit the crime that they are charged with. If you start going down the road of, they're guilty but I refuse to find them guilty because I don't agree with the penalty, then you're basically undermining the whole jury system (as well as, of course, knowingly setting someone who you believe has committed a serious crime free to commit more crimes)

As seen most recently with the Colston statue case, a jury may refuse to convict even if it’s blatantly obvious that the defendant committed the act that is the subject of the charge. I guess a juror could ask to be released from a capital case on grounds of moral objection to the death penalty, but might equally consider it their moral duty to keep quiet and try to influence the jury against convicting when the time came.

 

[Busaholic]

You certainly can object to being on a jury for a specific trial.

Not because you don't like the nature of it,only because the expected length would have a deleterious effect on your life. You'd never be told it was for a murder trial in any case. If it later transpired that you had a connection to anyone involved in the trial it would be incumbent upon you to alert court staff via the jury foreman/woman.

 

[davehsug]

It's all hypothetical anyway, If this country were to ever consider re-introduction, I doubt life here would be worth living anyway.
My assertion does have some basis in reality though. I did read, but can't find it, was that amongst the many reasons for abolition (or at least suspension), was that juries were becoming increasingly reluctant to convict in capital cases.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not because you don't like the nature of it,only because the expected length would have a deleterious effect on your life. You'd never be told it was for a murder trial in any case. If it later transpired that you had a connection to anyone involved in the trial it would be incumbent upon you to alert court staff via the jury foreman/woman.

You can certainly object to being on a case as a juror, if you are unable to try the case on its own merits, for more complicated cases. My own father did, in a case in England.

 

[yorksrob]

If someone called for jury duty felt that they would be unable to perform their duty on idealogical grounds (i.e. they didn't agree with the potential sentence) I'd rather they were able to declare that beforehand and absent themselves, than be forced to damage the justice process.

 

[GB]

Were I to be on a jury, there are no circumstances in which I would find someone guilty if I knew the punishment was execution. I doubt I'm alone.
It's not an issue of deterrence or otherwise, it's just wrong.

Bizarre and frankly worrying attitude to take when serving on a jury.

 

[birchesgreen]

Bizarre and frankly worrying attitude to take when serving on a jury.

I disagree, if you are against the death penalty how can you with a conscience condemn someone to it. I know its unusual for people to act according to their conscience these days, our leaders seldom do.

 

[GB]

So, someone walks into a school and kills a load of children, or someone abducts rapes and murders someone, or someone commits a gross terrorist act and you will find them not guilty just because you appose the death penalty? Yeah that’s great.

 

[birchesgreen]

So, someone walks into a school and kills a load of children, or someone abducts rapes and murders someone, or someone commits a gross terrorist act and you will find them not guilty just because you appose the death penalty? Yeah that’s great.

I didn't say what i would do, but i can understand someone struggling with their conscience about it. If they did bring the death penalty back they would have to have an opt out for jury service for capital crimes.

 

[najaB]

So, someone walks into a school and kills a load of children, or someone abducts rapes and murders someone, or someone commits a gross terrorist act and you will find them not guilty just because you appose the death penalty?

In most jurisdictions the death penalty requires a unanimous verdict, but a life sentence can be given for a majority verdict.

So it's actually a reasonable position to take.

 

[GB]

I didn't say what i would do, but i can understand someone struggling with their conscience about it. If they did bring the death penalty back they would have to have an opt out for jury service for capital crimes.

sorry I meant “you” as a generalisation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's all hypothetical anyway, If this country were to ever consider re-introduction, I doubt life here would be worth living anyway.

You seem to have a very low bar for what would make life not worth living. As far as I can make out, Parliament has considered re-introducing the death penalty 4 times during my adult life. If my memory serves me correctly, on each occasion life in the UK carried on as normal with no discernible loss of quality of life - certainly for myself and my friends or family.

And even if we went beyond merely considering re-introduction and actually re-introduced it, I'm pretty sure almost the only people directly affected would be people who commit serious crimes (and their friends/family/victims).

 

[alex397]

And even if we went beyond merely considering re-introduction and actually re-introduced it, I'm pretty sure almost the only people directly affected would be people who commit serious crimes (and their friends/family/victims).

Except, as many have said repeatedly on this thread, the argument is that innocent people may still be condemned to death.

It is also a slippery slope if it is reintroduced, and then tinkered with to blur the lines, which is something I wouldn’t put past our glorious politicians.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Except, as many have said repeatedly on this thread, the argument is that innocent people may still be condemned to death.

The context of this particular sub-discussion was that someone suggested that life wouldn't be worth living if the UK considered re-introducing the death penalty.

Given that context... what is the risk of being a victim of miscarriage of justice vs. being the victim of a serious crime? While it's not zero, it's going to be tiny. Whether or not the death penalty exists, your chances of suffering death/life-changing injuries/etc. at the hands of a criminal will be orders of magnitude greater than your chances of suffering a similar fate because of a miscarriage of justice. If you feel your life would not be worth living because of the tiny risk of a miscarriage of justice, then you're probably worrying about the wrong things...

(And of course, as I've repeatedly pointed out, if the death penalty were introduced but only for cases where a person has repeatedly been convicted of serious crimes on multiple occasions, then the chances of executing a completely innocent law-abiding person because of a miscarriage of justice basically become zero anyway).

 

[P Binnersley]

(And of course, as I've repeatedly pointed out, if the death penalty were introduced but only for cases where a person has repeatedly been convicted of serious crimes on multiple occasions, then the chances of executing a completely innocent law-abiding person because of a miscarriage of justice basically become zero anyway).

If somebody has has been convicted of a "serious crime", then they should be unable to convict another serious crime for at least 10 years due to being detained at her majesty's pleasure. Anything less and you have to question how serious the offences were. Convictions over 10 years apart are hardly repeatedly.

 

[najaB]

You seem to have a very low bar for what would make life not worth living. As far as I can make out, Parliament has considered re-introducing the death penalty 4 times during my adult life. If my memory serves me correctly, on each occasion life in the UK carried on as normal with no discernible loss of quality of life - certainly for myself and my friends or family.

I could well be misinterpreting the point but I believe that the sentiment behind it is that popular support for reintroduction of capital punishment would be so stark an indicator of the slide of UK society away from liberal, progressive and socially just values as to make @davehsug question if it was a society he could be comfortable being a part of.

I share that view.

And of course, as I've repeatedly pointed out, if the death penalty were introduced but only for cases where a person has repeatedly been convicted of serious crimes on multiple occasions, then the chances of executing a completely innocent law-abiding person because of a miscarriage of justice basically become zero anyway.

And as I have repeatedly pointed in reply, the fact that someone has previously broken the law makes it no less likely that a miscarriage of justice might result in them being executed for a crime that they didn't commit. (Look up the Gambler's Fallacy). In fact, if anything, it makes such an outcome more likely as numerous cases have shown that investigations are less thorough once a 'good' suspect has been identified, and prosecutors are going to be more likely to seek the death penalty when a "dangerous criminal" is in the frame.

If somebody has has been convicted of a "serious crime", then they should be unable to convict another serious crime for at least 10 years due to being detained at her majesty's pleasure. Anything less and you have to question how serious the offences were. Convictions over 10 years apart are hardly repeatedly.

This, exactly. Reintroducing capital punishment is not a fix for a broken penal system.

 

[davehsug]

You seem to have a very low bar for what would make life not worth living. As far as I can make out, Parliament has considered re-introducing the death penalty 4 times during my adult life. If my memory serves me correctly, on each occasion life in the UK carried on as normal with no discernible loss of quality of life - certainly for myself and my friends or family.

And even if we went beyond merely considering re-introduction and actually re-introduced it, I'm pretty sure almost the only people directly affected would be people who commit serious crimes (and their friends/family/victims).

I rather meant that if the country had gone so far down that rabbit hole, that reintroduction was a real possibility and I admit at times these days it's easy enough to think we might, then it would no longer be a country that I could consider a civilised place to live in.

 

[najaB]

I find it staggering if the car driver was even arrested on suspicion of murder in the circumstances. I have to admit I would consider doing the same (as reported) in similar circumstances.

As most people expected, the Met has determined that the driver will not face any charges:

A driver who used his car to try to stop a woman being stabbed by her stalker ex-husband in west London has been released without charge.

He was arrested on suspicion of murder and later bailed after Leon McCaskre, 41, died when he was hit while killing Yasmin Chkaifi, 43, in Maida Vale.

The Met said after reviewing evidence it had been the decided the 26-year-old would face no further police action.

Driver arrested over Maida Vale knife killer's death faces no charge

The driver used his car to try to stop Yasmin Chkaifi from being stabbed by her stalker ex-husband.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[LowLevel]

Daniel Boulton jailed for Bethany Vincent and Darren Henson murders

Daniel Boulton is jailed for a minimum of 40 years for killing Bethany Vincent and Darren Henson.

www.bbc.co.uk

A chap walks 28 miles to stab a 9 year old to death. Sorry, he's uncorrectably defective and should be euthanised, whether you judge the matter to be manslaughter as he pleaded or murder.

 

[najaB]

A chap walks 28 miles to stab a 9 year old to death.

More accurately: A chap walks 28 miles to stab his ex to death and a 9 year old was there too.

He was able to do so because the police and legal system hadn't dealt with repeated breaches of a restraining order preventing him from interacting with her, and social services were too overwhelmed to rehouse her soon enough.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

He was able to do so because the police and legal system hadn't dealt with repeated breaches of a restraining order preventing him from interacting with her, and social services were too overwhelmed to rehouse her soon enough.

I'm not sure what point you're traying to make there regarding the man's actions or sentence? Maybe there were issues with social services and enforcing the restraining order, but that doesn't change that just about any adult with a half a functioning brain cell would know that it's completely wrong to stab a defenceless ex-partner and then a 9-year-old child to death. The long walk shows that the breeching of the restraining order (and quite likely, at least one of the murders too) was pre-meditated, and it appears that this was not an isolated incident but the culmination of a long history of abuse. The fact that the woman happened not to have yet been rehoused does not in any way excuse or mitigate what this man did.

More generally (and not particularly aimed at you) it seems to me that there is far too much tendency these days in the UK for people to try to blame supposed inaction by the Government or social problems or mental health problems etc. for people doing things that they must know perfectly well are very obviously wrong. In the end, if you abuse someone, or attack someone, or kill someone, then it is *you* who has chosen to do that, and *you* who is responsible for your actions.

 

[najaB]

I'm not sure what point you're traying to make there regarding the man's actions or sentence? Maybe there were issues with social services and enforcing the restraining order, but that doesn't change that just about any adult with a half a functioning brain cell would know that it's completely wrong to stab a defenceless ex-partner and then a 9-year-old child to death.

An adult with correctly function brain cells, yes. An adult suffering from mental illness, maybe not so much.

In the end, if you abuse someone, or attack someone, or kill someone, then it is *you* who has chosen to do that, and *you* who is responsible for your actions.

The law disagrees with you. Look up the term "diminished responsibility" some time.

The fact that the woman happened not to have yet been rehoused does not in any way excuse or mitigate what this man did.

Which is why he's going to prison for 40 years.

 

[LowLevel]

An adult with correctly function brain cells, yes. An adult suffering from mental illness, maybe not so much.

The law disagrees with you. Look up the term "diminished responsibility" some time.

Which is why he's going to prison for 40 years.

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.

 

[najaB]

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.

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. There were numerous chances to stop it from happening, he apparently exhibited an escalating pattern of behaviour that should have been stopped but instead was allowed to continue resulting in a double murder.

Killing him allows us to pretend that we didn't let this happen. We shouldn't kill people to "save everyone the hassle".

 

[AlterEgo]

Much as I've set out my stall on the death penalty earlier in the thread, I don't think it should be used to dispense with subnormal people or those with diminished responsibility.