The Death Penalty

[najaB]

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

Yes. Essentially useless where monozygotic siblings and clones are concerned. And the former is more relevant than you might think. There have been at least a handful of cases in the last 20 years or so where DNA evidence wasn't enough to secure a conviction because the suspect was one of a set of identical twins/triplets.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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.

I believe that doesn't really matter (even aside from the caveats that others have mentioned): Sure, there are (on a quick Google) 7.8 billion people on the planet. But if you're investigating - say - a murder in London, then you can immediately exclude almost all of the 7.8 Bn people in the World because most of them don't live in the UK, and even if they were in the UK, you can easily prove that they were nowhere near that part of London at the time of the murder. So in practice you're basically never in a situation where you're trying to use DNA evidence to distinguish between any of 7.8 Bn: You're always using it to distinguish identify an individual from a group that is orders of magnitude smaller.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Yes. Essentially useless where monozygotic siblings and clones are concerned. And the former is more relevant than you might think. There have been at least a handful of cases in the last 20 years or so where DNA evidence wasn't enough to secure a conviction because the suspect was one of a set of identical twins/triplets.

I would assume there would have to be some evidence of a twin actually existing if someone was to use that defense! But if a twin absolutely did exist and there was no doubt about that, is the existence of that twin enough to render the DNA evidence useless, or would the argument have to be that the twin was the guilty party (which if you were close at least would seem a bit of a selfish way to defend yourself in court!).

 

[Ediswan]

Yes. Essentially useless where monozygotic siblings and clones are concerned. And the former is more relevant than you might think. There have been at least a handful of cases in the last 20 years or so where DNA evidence wasn't enough to secure a conviction because the suspect was one of a set of identical twins/triplets.

As is often the case, it seems to be a bit more nuanced. Monozygotic siblings are indeed identical as far as the standard DNA profile is concerned. However, they often (not always) have very small DNA differences due to individual mutations: https://www.livescience.com/identical-twins-dont-share-all-dna.html

There are forensic labs working on methods for identifying those small differences. As far as I can tell, none so far are good enough to be used in court.

 

[Trackman]

I believe that doesn't really matter (even aside from the caveats that others have mentioned): Sure, there are (on a quick Google) 7.8 billion people on the planet. But if you're investigating - say - a murder in London, then you can immediately exclude almost all of the 7.8 Bn people in the World because most of them don't live in the UK, and even if they were in the UK, you can easily prove that they were nowhere near that part of London at the time of the murder. So in practice you're basically never in a situation where you're trying to use DNA evidence to distinguish between any of 7.8 Bn: You're always using it to distinguish identify an individual from a group that is orders of magnitude smaller.

OJ Simpson's was 1 in 120 billion matching both Simpson's and Nicole Brown's DNA.
Not sure if it was fully understood then and the defence argued the case with the DNA.

 

[najaB]

There are forensic labs working on methods for identifying those small differences. As far as I can tell, none so far are good enough to be used in court.

True. I should have said "currently useless" as there will, no doubt, be advances in the future.

 

[najaB]

It's a good thing that they don't often go for the death penalty in Florida:

Thomas James walked into Miami’s Richard E. Gerstein Justice building shortly after 11 o'clock in the morning yesterday wearing a red inmate uniform, his head shaved smooth. Within the hour he was putting on street clothes for the first time in 32 years and walking out into the bright afternoon. Prosecutors had moved to vacate Thomas's 1991 murder conviction following a year-long review of his case. That review followed a GQ story I published last July that uncovered evidence showing James was the victim of mistaken identity.

James’s journey to this point had been incredible. Even though police never talked to him, he was charged with murder in a 1990 apartment robbery in Miami, because, as he later found out, he had the same name as the suspect they were looking for. It was a simple and cruel error with devastating consequences. James was sentenced to life in prison, where he began to investigate his case, and then exhausted his appeals trying to point out the mistake that had landed him there. From behind bars, he improbably located the namesake suspect the police never found — an extraordinary discovery that helped set into motion the events that would culminate in his release.

The Tragic Case of the Wrong Thomas James Is Finally Righted

After 32 years, a Florida man sentenced to life in prison for murder because he had the same name as another suspect is finally free.

www.gq.com

At least "all" he lost was 32 years of his life.

 

[Typhoon]

It's a good thing that they don't often go for the death penalty in Florida:

The Tragic Case of the Wrong Thomas James Is Finally Righted

After 32 years, a Florida man sentenced to life in prison for murder because he had the same name as another suspect is finally free.

www.gq.com

At least "all" he lost was 32 years of his life.

That was not 'mistaken identity', that was incompetence and idleness (and, perhaps, worse).

Although it is the worst case I have heard of, it is not unique by a long chalk. Cases where the height, weight, age, face shape, name don't match. I have even seen one where no-one noticed that the finger prints didn't match until the prisoner victim had been sentenced and spent time in jail.

I just hope someone sends a copy of the magazine to Ms P Patel. 2 Marsham Street, London.

Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Cowley]

Thread reopened for @najaB to add to.

 

[najaB]

Thanks.

I thought, given the earlier discussion around judicial mistakes, that it would be worth putting some numbers behind it.

Figures from the USA indicate just how big a problem this could potentially be: as many as 10% of people on death row could be the victims of miscarriages of justice:

Capital punishment was abolished in England, Wales and Scotland in 1965, and abolished in Northern Ireland in 1973. Since then, we have not run the risk of sentencing innocent people to death, but innocent people have been, and continue to be, sentenced to death with alarming frequency in the United States of America. Since 1976, 1,348 people have been executed in the US, but in that time 136 people have been exonerated from death row on the grounds that they categorically could not have committed the crime for which they were sentenced to death.

While there are obvious problems with the 'justice' system in that country, I cannot in good conscience say that our system is faultless enough to say that it couldn't happen here:

On 21 November 1974, two bombs exploded in crowded pubs in central Birmingham, killing 21 people and sending the city and the country into shock. The bombings were attributed to the Provisional IRA, and a year later six Irish men were sentenced to terms of life imprisonment for their roles in planting and detonating the devices.

The “Birmingham Six”, as these men came to be known, steadfastly maintained their innocence, and a dedicated team of investigative journalists and lawyers slowly but surely convinced the British public that these men were telling the truth. In dramatic scenes outside the Old Bailey in London on 14 March 1991, Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power and John Walker had their convictions for murder quashed by the Court of Appeal. They had each spent 16 years in prison for crimes that they had not committed, and their case is one of the most notorious miscarriages of justice in British history.

Some food for thought for those who back the reinstatement of capital punishment.

Source: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/death-penalty.aspx

 

[yorksrob]

The Birmingham six, and the Guildford four are an abject lesson in why the rope is too dangerous a punishment to be tolerated today.

As a country we are fortunate to have whole life tariffs and to have seen whole life tariffs run their course, so as to be confident that proportionate justice can be carried out in all cases without recourse to the death penalty.

 

[Gloster]

The trouble is that those pushing for the return of the death penalty (Lee Anderson, I am looking at you (yuk)) would just say that the US is another country and it wouldn’t happen here, and all those cases you mention were long ago and it wouldn’t happen nowadays (blah, blah, blah, I’m not listening). And there will be those who will see reinstating the death penalty as a way of further distancing this country from European standards (and, yes, I am being serious with that point).

 

[najaB]

As a country we are fortunate to have whole life tariffs and to have seen whole life tariffs run their course, so as to be confident that proportionate justice can be carried out in all cases without recourse to the death penalty.

Indeed. While it is tragic when people lose years of their lives to miscarriages of justice, at least if they are still alive there's a opportunity to make restitution.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. While it is tragic when people lose years of their lives to miscarriages of justice, at least if they are still alive there's a opportunity to make restitution.

Absolutely. Whilst I don't see any way of eliminating the possibility of a miscarriage of justice, at least there is the possibility of restitution during their lifetime.

 

[the sniper]

Thanks.

I thought, given the earlier discussion around judicial mistakes, that it would be worth putting some numbers behind it.

Figures from the USA indicate just how big a problem this could potentially be: as many as 10% of people on death row could be the victims of miscarriages of justice:

While there are obvious problems with the 'justice' system in that country, I cannot in good conscience say that our system is faultless enough to say that it couldn't happen here:

Some food for thought for those who back the reinstatement of capital punishment.

Source: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/death-penalty.aspx

I think that's a very good argument against capital punishment being carried out 30 plus years ago, but the extent and nature of evidence that can be available now is so much greater, that, given the appropriate resources (that a case applicable to receiving the death penalty now would inevitably receive), some cases can be irrefutably proven. If the death penalty were to be brought back, that sentence could be reliant upon such irrefutable evidence, though I appreciate that would require a change in approach, as that isn't how sentencing currently works.

 

[nw1]

Thanks.

I thought, given the earlier discussion around judicial mistakes, that it would be worth putting some numbers behind it.

Figures from the USA indicate just how big a problem this could potentially be: as many as 10% of people on death row could be the victims of miscarriages of justice:

While there are obvious problems with the 'justice' system in that country, I cannot in good conscience say that our system is faultless enough to say that it couldn't happen here:


Some food for thought for those who back the reinstatement of capital punishment.

Source: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/death-penalty.aspx

I wonder if Anderson has anything useful to say about the Birmingham Six. Someone should certainly quiz him about them.

 

[Typhoon]

Thanks.

I thought, given the earlier discussion around judicial mistakes, that it would be worth putting some numbers behind it.

Figures from the USA indicate just how big a problem this could potentially be: as many as 10% of people on death row could be the victims of miscarriages of justice:

While there are obvious problems with the 'justice' system in that country, I cannot in good conscience say that our system is faultless enough to say that it couldn't happen here:


Some food for thought for those who back the reinstatement of capital punishment.

Source: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/death-penalty.aspx

Sorry if this is a repeat. I was living in Birmingham at the time, I was close to (but not in) the city centre at the time. I remember trying to get home, the traffic. Even more I remember the aftermath, the city was on edge, anyone with an Irish accent would have been advised to keep a very low profile. There were some who stood up, a catholic priest associated with the Irish Centre and, I think, a radio presenter but if would have asked anyone there is every chance they would have voted for the death penalty. I seem to remember that confessions were beaten out of the six. Thanks to the work of the likes of Chris Mullin, they were shown to be innocent; if we had had the death penalty, Mullin would have proved that we had hanged the wrong men, rather than permit the innocent to go free.

For those who advocate the death penalty, I always ask what they would say to the parents, spouse, children, siblings, family and friends of those executed in error? 'Sorry'?

 

[nw1]

Sorry if this is a repeat. I was living in Birmingham at the time, I was close to (but not in) the city centre at the time. I remember trying to get home, the traffic. Even more I remember the aftermath, the city was on edge, anyone with an Irish accent would have been advised to keep a very low profile.

There is no excuse at all for this kind of thing. "You're Irish, therefore you must be a terrorist". There are, of course, equivalents in modern times too, sadly.

There were some who stood up, a catholic priest associated with the Irish Centre and, I think, a radio presenter but if would have asked anyone there is every chance they would have voted for the death penalty. I seem to remember that confessions were beaten out of the six.

If there is any justice, the police officers who did this should have been sentenced to life imprisonment. Of course, I am sure they weren't.

Thanks to the work of the likes of Chris Mullin, they were shown to be innocent; if we had had the death penalty, Mullin would have proved that we had hanged the wrong men, rather than permit the innocent to go free.

For those who advocate the death penalty, I always ask what they would say to the parents, spouse, children, siblings, family and friends of those executed in error? 'Sorry'?

I do wonder whether there are some death penalty advocates who consider wrongful execution as unfortunate but necessary collateral damage. (I'm not saying that they do, by the way, this is merely speculation).

 

[AlterEgo]

I do wonder whether there are some death penalty advocates who consider wrongful execution as unfortunate but necessary collateral damage. (I'm not saying that they do, by the way, this is merely speculation).

Of course they do - this is no different from anyone else who advocates for any form of criminal justice.

The British state is responsible for so many deaths as "collateral" that I don't understand the squeamishness about the death penalty being administered within the criminal justice system.

 

[nw1]

Of course they do - this is no different from anyone else who advocates for any form of criminal justice.

The British state is responsible for so many deaths as "collateral" that I don't understand the squeamishness about the death penalty being administered within the criminal justice system.

I presume you're talking about the Iraq war (for example). I agree, I was very much against that and was very disturbed to see the bombing of innocent citizens in Baghdad.

But the death penalty isn't even a response to a perceived emergency that a war might be seen as. As @Typhoon has said the Birmingham Six will have been dead if the death penalty had existed in 1974.

You can release people from jail, but you can't bring them back from the dead.

 

[najaB]

The British state is responsible for so many deaths as "collateral" that I don't understand the squeamishness about the death penalty being administered within the criminal justice system.

The "squeamishness" is twofold. Firstly is the irrevocable nature of the punishment, second is the question of if it actually is anything other than institutionalised revenge - how does imposition of a death sentence represent more of a punishment than a whole life tariff?

 

[nw1]

The "squeamishness" is twofold. Firstly is the irrevocable nature of the punishment, second is the question of if it actually is anything other than institutionalised revenge - how does imposition of a death sentence represent more of a punishment than a whole life tariff?

Indeed. I doubt anyone wants to go to jail for 30 or 40 years, surely that is deterrent in itself.

 

[cb a1]

I've often wondered if one's faith has any influence over one's view of the death penalty. I don't subscribe to any belief in a deity or the concept of heaven, hell or reincarnation. My belief is that when you're dead, you're dead.
As such, I don't see the death penalty as a punishment. Obviously perpetrators who face the death penalty may / will have a very different perspective, but I'm talking here from the perspective of say being a relative or friend of someone who has died or suffered at the hand of the perpetrator.
I want to know the perpetrator is being punished for their crimes and for me that is for them to be locked up.

 

[MP33]

My opinion is that, if it was to be re introduced. Unlike before when it was the mandatory sentence for Murder and a few other offences. There should be discretion in whether or not it or imprisonment is passed.

A better example of the injustice was Derek Bentley. Once the process started it proved impossible to stop, although the Judge did recommend life imprisonment and the failure was down to the then Home Secretary.

 

[Sorcerer]

Capital punishment is the most extreme and permanent form of retribution-based justice where it gives some people a feeling of avengement that they often confuse for justice. But despite people's natural fear of death, there is little to no evidence that it deters crime, and in fact I think most would rather be put to death than spend the rest of their lives locked away. I could barely manage two nights in hospital a few years ago. There is also the philosophical argument behind it being wrong because if you're sentencing someone to death for murder, how have you proven that killing someone is wrong?

If someone killed a family member of mine and in return I killed them, I would most certainly not be let off the hook for killing them. Therefore capital punishment is merely state-sanctioned murder. It is also my opinion that no matter what crimes one commits, we as humans have no right to decide who deserves life and death, and if anyone believes otherwise I would challenge them to tell me what gives us that right. The truth is, killing people may stop them from committing crimes, but it most certainly isn't justice, assuming that they weren't one of those people who have been wrongly executed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The trouble is that those pushing for the return of the death penalty (Lee Anderson, I am looking at you (yuk)) would just say that the US is another country and it wouldn’t happen here, and all those cases you mention were long ago and it wouldn’t happen nowadays (blah, blah, blah, I’m not listening).

I guess by that logic we should rid of all nuclear power in the UK because there have been terrible accidents involving (by today's standards, obsolete) nuclear power stations long ago in other countries.

That's the kind of logic you end up with if you ignore differences between countries and improvements in standards over time, as you seem to be saying we should do for the death penalty.

 

[Typhoon]

Capital punishment is the most extreme and permanent form of retribution-based justice where it gives some people a feeling of avengement that they often confuse for justice. But despite people's natural fear of death, there is little to no evidence that it deters crime, and in fact I think most would rather be put to death than spend the rest of their lives locked away. I could barely manage two nights in hospital a few years ago. There is also the philosophical argument behind it being wrong because if you're sentencing someone to death for murder, how have you proven that killing someone is wrong?

If someone killed a family member of mine and in return I killed them, I would most certainly not be let off the hook for killing them. Therefore capital punishment is merely state-sanctioned murder. It is also my opinion that no matter what crimes one commits, we as humans have no right to decide who deserves life and death, and if anyone believes otherwise I would challenge them to tell me what gives us that right. The truth is, killing people may stop them from committing crimes, but it most certainly isn't justice, assuming that they weren't one of those people who have been wrongly executed.

In fact, it is quite possible, in some cases, that it has the opposite effect. As Ian Hislop claimed, it may create martyrs, which imprisonment doesn't.

 

[najaB]

I guess by that logic we should rid of all nuclear power in the UK because there have been terrible accidents involving (by today's standards, obsolete) nuclear power stations long ago in other countries.

That's the kind of logic you end up with if you ignore differences between countries and improvements in standards over time, as you seem to be saying we should do for the death penalty.

That argument might hold some water if there had been the same amount of technological improvement in the justice system as there has been in nuclear safety technologies.

However, the vast majority of cases where people are convicted of murders that they didn't commit are due to procedural errors on the part of investigators and prosecutors.

Police are trying to solve the crime by arresting someone, and prosecutors are trying to convict the suspect handed to them by the police. Neither group is trying to prove the defendant innocent. So it's in their advantage to discount and not follow up on possibly exculpatory evidence.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If someone killed a family member of mine and in return I killed them, I would most certainly not be let off the hook for killing them.

Likewise, if someone kidnapped and locked up a family member of yours and in return you kidnapped them and locked them up for some years, you would certainly not be let off the hook for doing so. Yet funnily enough, we don't have any objection to the state doing that... it's called prison!

Therefore capital punishment is merely state-sanctioned murder.

Just as prison is effectively state-sanctioned kidnapping (minus the ransom demands).

Realistically, you need a way to punish people/deter crime/remove hardened criminals from society/etc. and the only way to achieve that is to allow the state (after following due process) to take actions that you would never allow an individual person to do. That's a perfectly accepted part of our society. In that regard, prison is no different from the death penalty, if we had it. It does not therefore make logical sense to oppose the death penalty on the basis that you (rightly) don't allow individual people to kill other people - by that logic, you would have no criminal justice system at all!

It is also my opinion that no matter what crimes one commits, we as humans have no right to decide who deserves life and death, and if anyone believes otherwise I would challenge them to tell me what gives us that right.

I'd argue that what gives the state that moral right in some circumstances is pragmatism: The recognition that we don't live in a perfect World: Rather, we have to do the best we can in a real World that contains some very bad individuals who would commit heinous crimes if we don't stop them, and that stopping them sometimes requires us to take actions that we'd normally prefer not to take - in order to prevent greater wrongs from being done.

Or to push your question back to you, who determines the right of Ukrainian soldiers to kill Russian soldiers? I rather suspect that you wouldn't doubt that Ukrainian soldiers have that moral right given the current situation in Ukraine.

 

[Gloster]

One thing that has moved to the forefront of people’s minds since this thread started: would you trust a police force (any police force, not just the Met.) to be utterly scrupulous when dealing with murder cases? Even ignoring all the other justifications, if people are wrongly put to death, then it wrecks all the arguments in favour except for that of revenge, and such an emotion should not be part of the system: it is a justice system.