Capital Punishment

[MarkW]

43 minutes ago, onesea said:

The problems with statistics and surveys is they are very easily manipulated.

 

Ask on a motorbike forum about bikers using bus/ taxi lanes, then ask again on a taxi/ bus forum.

The same surveys will show very split answers.

Then the statistics people and the press gets involved and it only goes down hill.

 

This has its shown itself with Brexit and Covid very clearly at the moment.

 

Well yes and no.

 

It's easy for an unscrupulous researcher to frame a question in a way that gets them the answer they want, or to skew their data by canvassing a cohort that is not representative of the population, but it is equally easy for anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the scientific method to discredit their findings. Consequently, reputable social research consultancies tend to do things properly. Mind you, where data are collected by researchers standing in town centres I always feel that the results will be skewed towards a section of society that didn't even have the savvy to avoid someone who was coming towards them with a clipboard...

 

There are also inherent inaccuracies in one-off surveys, or in data collected over a short period of time - both of which are by necessity the case with Brexit and Covid - but our confidence in a statistic is increased with repetition, and with the application of 'goodness of fit' and inferential tests that determine whether a particular result fits a data series or is an outlier. 

 

The British Social Attitudes survey has been collecting data on public support for capital punishment for 37 years, and  is conducted by the UK's largest independent social research consultancy. Their data show a steady decline in support from around 75% in 1983 to around 48% today, and we can probably have as much confidence that their data are accurate as we can in any survey.

 

The statistics on public confidence in the judiciary came from the Ministry of Justice, so if they are openly publicising the fact that over 60% of the population has no confidence in them it's probably fairly safe to assume that the real situation is at least that bad.

[rennie]

I have mixed feelings on this! knee jerk and then considered 

So, overall, I'd say that bringing back The Death penalty is probably a bad idea.

However I do think that the Judiciary needs a massive review!

They are so far out of touch with society today that it's like they're on a different planet!

I think sentences should be harsher and time spent in prison should be much much tougher!

It's meant to be a deterrent!

I'm not quite in the bread and water and chain gang camp but I do feel we're far too soft at the moment 

[Bender]

2 hours ago, MarkW said:

And presumably would also have pulled the lever on Angela Cannings for murdering her two babies, or Suzanne Holdsworth for battering her neighbours two-year old son to death, or Sally Clark for killing her two babies, or Donna Anthony...

 

All these women would be dead now had someone 'pulled the lever' out of some primitive sense of retribution or 'doing justice'. All of them had their life sentences overturned - more than one of them as a result of the 'expert' testimony of the paediatrician who gave evidence against them being exposed for the utter garbage that it was. He was struck off by the GMC.

 

Perhaps there are some people who think that the State occasionally executing innocent people is a reasonable price to pay for the chance to execute the genuinely guilty, but I'm not one of them.

There is absolutely no chance the one I was on is ever going to be overturned his defence was based on his current partner dropping him in it for breaking his parole for his first rape and murder. Which he then repeated, I didn't say it should be used for every life sentence.

 

And I would still pull the lever.

 

 

[Slowlycatchymonkey]

5 hours ago, MarkW said:

 

Well yes and no.

 

It's easy for an unscrupulous researcher to frame a question in a way that gets them the answer they want, or to skew their data by canvassing a cohort that is not representative of the population, but it is equally easy for anyone with a rudimentary grasp of the scientific method to discredit their findings. Consequently, reputable social research consultancies tend to do things properly. Mind you, where data are collected by researchers standing in town centres I always feel that the results will be skewed towards a section of society that didn't even have the savvy to avoid someone who was coming towards them with a clipboard...

 

There are also inherent inaccuracies in one-off surveys, or in data collected over a short period of time - both of which are by necessity the case with Brexit and Covid - but our confidence in a statistic is increased with repetition, and with the application of 'goodness of fit' and inferential tests that determine whether a particular result fits a data series or is an outlier. 

 

The British Social Attitudes survey has been collecting data on public support for capital punishment for 37 years, and  is conducted by the UK's largest independent social research consultancy. Their data show a steady decline in support from around 75% in 1983 to around 48% today, and we can probably have as much confidence that their data are accurate as we can in any survey.

 

The statistics on public confidence in the judiciary came from the Ministry of Justice, so if they are openly publicising the fact that over 60% of the population has no confidence in them it's probably fairly safe to assume that the real situation is at least that bad.

Something about coming here spoiling things with your facts and reason springs to mind

[MarkW]

1 hour ago, Bender said:

There is absolutely no chance the one I was on is ever going to be overturned his defence was based on his current partner dropping him in it for breaking his parole for his first rape and murder. Which he then repeated, I didn't say it should be used for every life sentence.

 

And I would still pull the lever.

 

 

But this is precisely the problem, isn't it? People are generally totally convinced of someone's guilt before they sentence them to life imprisonment - that's one of the things that makes no sense when that rebarbative protozoan Priti Patel says we would require 'the highest levels of proof' before sentencing someone to death. Is she suggesting we don't currently require the highest levels of proof before committing someone to spend the rest of their life behind bars? 

 

In the case of Sally Clark, who was convicted of murdering two of her three babies, the jury heard the 'expert' testimony of paediatrician Sir Roy Meadow, who confidently explained the vanishingly small "1 in 73 million" statistical probability of both infants dying of natural causes. The jury were totally convinced of her guilt, and sent her down for life. The case went to the Court of Appeal a year later, where the judges were similarly convinced of her guilt, and upheld her conviction. Had you not already done so, this is presumably the point at which you would have gleefully 'pulled the lever'. 

 

But Sir Roy Meadow's figures were utter garbage - a result of almost complete statistical illiteracy and gross arrogance. A Home Office pathologist was also found to have withheld the results of microbiology tests that showed the second child had indeed died of natural causes. A review of the medical evidence was commissioned from a leading US forensic pathologist ahead of a second appeal, who said:

 

"Throughout my review, I was horrified by the shoddy fashion in which these cases were evaluated. It was clear that sound medical principles were abandoned in favour of over-simplification, over-interpretation, exclusion of relevant data and, in several instances, the imagining of non-existent findings."

 

There is absolutely no point in saying that capital punishment should be conditional on some 'special' level of proof. We know mistakes will be made in our judicial system because mistakes have been made and continue to be made. Some form of restitution can at least be made for years wrongly spent in prison, but once you've pulled that lever there's no putting things right later. If you support capital punishment you are saying that that doesn't matter: that a few innocent people going to the gallows is an acceptable price to pay for the animal satisfaction of being allowed to string up the genuinely guilty ones.  

 

In the end Sally Clark's conviction was quashed, and she was released after having wrongly served more then three years of her life sentence. She died from alcohol poisoning not long after her release, the ordeal of losing two children, being wrongly convicted of their murder and vilified by the press and the moronic masses who were baying for her to be strung up ultimately proving too much to bear.

 

It sickens me - genuinely sickens me - that in this country in the 21st Century there are people who could even entertain the idea of reinstating capital punishment, and that otherwise decent people would be volunteering to do it. In general, humans are a deeply stupid and aggressive species, and we stand no chance of progressing as a society if we pander to our basest instincts.

[James in Brum]

I recently came into conflict with a court report expert type person’s report. It was utter bilge and in my view inappropriate but also deftly accepted as valid evidence in court.

[Guest]

The Guildford Four.......the judge went out of his way to say he'd have imposed the death sentence on them if he'd had the power to do so.

 

And we know how safe that conviction was!

[Six30]

There a certain murderers rapist etc , who deserve the death penalty and it's the only punishment they should receive .

[Bender]

13 minutes ago, MarkW said:

But this is precisely the problem, isn't it? People are generally totally convinced of someone's guilt before they sentence them to life imprisonment - that's one of the things that makes no sense when that rebarbative protozoan Priti Patel says we would require 'the highest levels of proof' before sentencing someone to death. Is she suggesting we don't currently require the highest levels of proof before committing someone to spend the rest of their life behind bars? 

 

In the case of Sally Clark, who was convicted of murdering two of her three babies, the jury heard the 'expert' testimony of paediatrician Sir Roy Meadow, who confidently explained the vanishingly small "1 in 73 million" statistical probability of both infants dying of natural causes. The jury were totally convinced of her guilt, and sent her down for life. The case went to the Court of Appeal a year later, where the judges were similarly convinced of her guilt, and upheld her conviction. Had you not already done so, this is presumably the point at which you would have gleefully 'pulled the lever'. 

 

But Sir Roy Meadow's figures were utter garbage - a result of almost complete statistical illiteracy and gross arrogance. A Home Office pathologist was also found to have withheld the results of microbiology tests that showed the second child had indeed died of natural causes. A review of the medical evidence was commissioned from a leading US forensic pathologist ahead of a second appeal, who said:

 

"Throughout my review, I was horrified by the shoddy fashion in which these cases were evaluated. It was clear that sound medical principles were abandoned in favour of over-simplification, over-interpretation, exclusion of relevant data and, in several instances, the imagining of non-existent findings."

 

There is absolutely no point in saying that capital punishment should be conditional on some 'special' level of proof. We know mistakes will be made in our judicial system because mistakes have been made and continue to be made. Some form of restitution can at least be made for years wrongly spent in prison, but once you've pulled that lever there's no putting things right later. If you support capital punishment you are saying that that doesn't matter: that a few innocent people going to the gallows is an acceptable price to pay for the animal satisfaction of being allowed to string up the genuinely guilty ones.  

 

In the end Sally Clark's conviction was quashed, and she was released after having wrongly served more then three years of her life sentence. She died from alcohol poisoning not long after her release, the ordeal of losing two children, being wrongly convicted of their murder and vilified by the press and the moronic masses who were baying for her to be strung up ultimately proving too much to bear.

 

It sickens me - genuinely sickens me - that in this country in the 21st Century there are people who could even entertain the idea of reinstating capital punishment, and that otherwise decent people would be volunteering to do it. In general, humans are a deeply stupid and aggressive species, and we stand no chance of progressing as a society if we pander to our basest instincts.

Non of those make the slightest bit difference to the case I sat through, convicted and admitted to the first rape and murder, admitted and convicted of second, sit through a trial and look at stab wounds, entry and exit through what was some ones daughter, then look at the entry and exit marks through the floorboards.

 

Makes you sick, makes me sick he's still breathing and has since been responsible for multiple attacks on prison officers and inmates, he's one of the select few who are on life without parole.

 

I would still pull the rope, makes you sick so be it.

[James in Brum]

The point remains that people are that confident about innocent people and there is no coming back from killed. 

[Guest]

If you bloodthirsty wannabe executioners haven't seen this.......you should watch the late, great George Carlin's take on Capital Punishment.

 

Plenty of extermination options available on this......

 

 

[Bender]

21 minutes ago, James in Brum said:

The point remains that people are that confident about innocent people and there is no coming back from killed. 

Some cases and people are beyond doubt and help.

 

[MarkW]

27 minutes ago, Bender said:

Non of those make the slightest bit difference to the case I sat through, convicted and admitted to the first rape and murder, admitted and convicted of second, sit through a trial and look at stab wounds, entry and exit through what was some ones daughter, then look at the entry and exit marks through the floorboards.

 

Makes you sick, makes me sick he's still breathing and has since been responsible for multiple attacks on prison officers and inmates, he's one of the select few who are on life without parole.

 

I would still pull the rope, makes you sick so be it.

Yup, none of that stuff is pleasant to look at (I've done a fair bit of forensic entomology in my time) but with much respect you've slightly missed the point - or more likely I didn't make it very well in the first place. 

 

You and @Six30 both seem to be advocating for a two-tier system in which capital punishment is reserved for the worst offenders. Most people would consider that a mother who murders her babies would fall into that category, which takes you straight back to the case of Sally Clark and the other women who were wrongly accused of infanticide, and who would doubtless have gone to the gallows had the option been available. And whilst there may be cases - such as the one you describe - where someone 'deserved' the death penalty, the second you have it back on the statute books you're right back to square one when it comes to the risk of wrongly administering the ultimate punishment to the innocent. 

[Slowlycatchymonkey]

@Bender Even if you have personal experience in a case where the perpetrator in your view deserves the death penalty you have to acknowledge mistakes will be made and innocent people would hang. Would you want that on your conscience? Or would you view those innocents mistakenly hanged as acceptable collateral?

[Bender]

4 minutes ago, Slowlycatchymonkey said:

@Bender Even if you have personal experience in a case where the perpetrator in your view deserves the death penalty you have to acknowledge mistakes will be made and innocent people would hang. Would you want that on your conscience? Or would you view those innocents mistakenly hanged as acceptable collateral?

Your not getting it though are you, in my case or rather his, there is no mistake, there is no grey area he has since put 5 prison officers in hospital, he is beyond help, there is no hidden evidence there is no foul play, there is no one else involved, he admitted both murders, why should people continue to suffer because if him, he will kill again.

 

[Bender]

34 minutes ago, XTreme said:

 

Starmer's shot himself in the foot big style!

 

If he'd abstained or voted against it would have made no difference anyway......and he'd have distanced himself from it should the shit hit the fan. Now he's complicit!

 

Even the loony left of Corbyn, Abbott, and McDonnell voted against it.....not that they thought it was a shit deal, but on the basis that the UK should never have been in the EU in the first place! 

Mr Starmer was stuttering alot and getting his murds wuddled today, great performance.

[skyrider]

12 minutes ago, Slowlycatchymonkey said:

@Bender Even if you have personal experience in a case where the perpetrator in your view deserves the death penalty you have to acknowledge mistakes will be made and innocent people would hang. Would you want that on your conscience? Or would you view those innocents mistakenly hanged as acceptable collateral?

a guy many years ago who lived near me (pierpoint) was the local hangman also the landlord of a pub 

[Slowlycatchymonkey]

1 minute ago, Bender said:

Your not getting it though are you, in my case or rather his, there is no mistake, there is no grey area he has since put 5 prison officers in hospital, he is beyond help, there is no hidden evidence there is no foul play, there is no one else involved, he admitted both murders, why should people continue to suffer because if him, he will kill again.

 

You’re saying in this  particular case theres no mistake and he would deserve it but your not acknowledging the change in the law to allow this ‘deserving’ persons murder would then lead to innocent people being hanged. 
Sometimes people’s views are emotionally compromised by what they’ve seen or been involved in. You have to put that to one side and look a step further at what the consequences of you having your way on one case would have on everything that came after. That would without doubt be innocent people being hanged. So my question remains. Do you think innocent people being hanged is acceptable collateral?

[skyrider]

6 minutes ago, Slowlycatchymonkey said:

You’re saying in this  particular case theres no mistake and he would deserve it but your not acknowledging the change in the law to allow this ‘deserving’ persons murder would then lead to innocent people being hanged. 
Sometimes people’s views are emotionally compromised by what they’ve seen or been involved in. You have to put that to one side and look a step further at what the consequences of you having your way on one case would have on everything that came after. That would without doubt be innocent people being hanged. So my question remains. Do you think innocent people being hanged is acceptable collateral?

no it isn't good what has gone on in the past, and then again perhaps they should bring it back(talking about britain) it might make some people think twice before they commit a serious crime

[Slowlycatchymonkey]

1 minute ago, skyrider said:

no it isn't good what has gone on in the past, and then again perhaps they should bring it back(talking about britain) it might make some people think twice before they commit a serious crime

Just Google does the death penalty reduce murder rates? Then do some reading.

[MarkW]

2 minutes ago, skyrider said:

no it isn't good what has gone on in the past, and then again perhaps they should bring it back(talking about britain) it might make some people think twice before they commit a serious crime

Your old local landlord Albert Pierrepoint came to an entirely different conclusion after a career spent offing people on the gallows - that it served no deterrent purpose whatever.

[skyrider]

1 minute ago, Slowlycatchymonkey said:

Just Google does the death penalty reduce murder rates? Then do some reading.

and again with some hardened criminals they wouldn't be that fussed anyway and just chance it 

[skyrider]

2 minutes ago, MarkW said:

Your old local landlord Albert Pierrepoint came to an entirely different conclusion after a career spent offing people on the gallows - that it served no deterrent purpose whatever.

those type of people are better off away 

[MarkW]

13 minutes ago, skyrider said:

those type of people are better off away 

What type of people? 

[Guest]

Just now, MarkW said:

What type of people? 

 

Tories!