Violet1956 Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-25 12:03 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). So if I have got this right less than 1% of all people convicted of homicide over a ten year period had previously committed murder. I think it likely that you are right that CSI and DNA testing would result in fewer miscarriages of justice but I don't believe that it would be conclusive in every case. I don't seek to make light of the deaths of 40 people. However, the difference between you and I on this subject is that I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted November 25, 2017 Author Share Posted November 25, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 3:53 AM.... I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. Bringing back the death penalty is a separate argument - but I understand that if it was the subjet of a referendum it would pass easily. The proposition here is that once an individual is convicted of a serious crime, society acquires the right to decide whether to hold him (or her) in custody on a risk-prevention basis, i.e. whether, on the balance of probability, he (or she) presents a risk to other if at liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Your views are based on logic and fact where Pelmetheads views are in mad hatter world. Bring back the death penalty, then watch his face as one of his own family gets wrongly convicted, sent to the slammer and strung up by the neck. "Oops.....ooerr we made a mistake. Sorry Mr Pelmet head we've just snuffed your family member out by mistake....you don't mind do you?" Doubt he'd be so vocal then and would end up singing (crying) from a different hymn sheet. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 StuartO - 2017-11-25 1:33 PMViolet1956 - 2017-11-26 3:53 AM.... I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. Bringing back the death penalty is a separate argument - but I understand that if it was the subjet of a referendum it would pass easily. The proposition here is that once an individual is convicted of a serious crime, society acquires the right to decide whether to hold him (or her) in custody on a risk-prevention basis, i.e. whether, on the balance of probability, he (or she) presents a risk to other if at liberty.Yes, Stuart I have been drawn into digression from your original post apologies. I would not be against such a sentencing policy in relation to offenders who had been convicted of a serious crime if, and only if the government had in place measures providing a sufficient opportunity for individuals to demonstrate that they were most probably no longer a risk to the public. That's where the government fell down when they introduced indeterminate sentences without any reasonable mechanism for prisoners to demonstrate they were no longer posed such a risk. There are still people rotting in jails for years beyond the minimum tariff set by the Judge under that system which was abolished in 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/14/liz-truss-get-grip-backlog-prisoners-held-beyond-interdeminate-sentence-ipp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 StuartO - 2017-11-25 9:00 AMBrian Kirby - 2017-11-25 9:58 AM.... it seems we'd still have to release the offender to be able to know whether the treatment had worked. Then, if it didn't work, whose would be the fault? If a reformer fails repeatedly then his method is demonstrably failing, and he should be dropped. Problem is before he can be sacked he has to have failed repeatedly, meaning the position regarding re-offenders won't be that much changed. You're a great one for non sequiturs Brian - of course it's the offender's fault if he offends again, so he pays the price, but his failure may also indicate failure by the reformer who passed him as ready for release, so he comes under the microscope too. And why are you assuming it's necessary for repeat failures to have occured before we can take remedial action - isn't one failure enough for a reviewing judgement to be justified? If you overlay your liberal ideas of giving people the benefit of multiple mistakes (as if they were somehow fundamental things) before we protect the public from these offenders, we put innocent lives and lifestyles at risk. I don't accept that offenders have rights to liberty at all. My argument is that once an individual becomes an offender (arguably for any non-trivial offence, at any age) society has the right to make risk-management judgements about protecting members of society from them. We are entitled to make judgements (or to use judges and/or probabtion officers to make judgements for us) and if in doubt, we can lock 'em up for our own protection anytime we want to. Well Stuart you did say this: " I think I would determine the point at which we write someone off in terms of the practicability of reforming them. We set a budget for reform services (what we can afford) and appoint the best people that budget can buy to do the work and be accountable for the results; if an individual fails to respond as predicted, we write them off. We might also sack the reformer who fails too."What I see is a convenient argument, but not a particularly realistic one, I'm afraid. Trying to modify people's behaviour is notoriously difficult. Changing the behaviour of those who demonstrate repeated irrationality even more so. If you want to sack the psychiatrist who thinks he has succeeded and subsequently finds he has not, fine. Go ahead. My suspicion is that you'll quickly run out of psychiatrists willing to risk their reputations in so high risk an arena. What then? People claim that if capital punishment were reintroduced it would deter murderers. From memory, murders were committed when we had capital punishment, and the murder rate did not suddenly spike up when it was abolished. I'll grant it is cheaper than prison, but when the cases of mistaken identity are taken into account it is the reputation of the criminal justice system that suffers, and that also has its dangers. All I'm trying to argue is that simple answers to complex human behavioural problems, no matter how seductive at first sight, are likely to prove mirages. It is not a world of 2 + 2 = 4. The answer can be anywhere between 1.5 and about 6, and on-one yet adequately understands this branch of maths. If we did, we'd have already fixed the problem. Logic and rationality just don't seem to work in this world. I'm sure we can improve on what we already do, but it will be time consuming, demanding of resource, and expensive. Otherwise, I guess we'll carry on much as we are, with prisons that merely keep people off the streets for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-11-25 1:38 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Your views are based on logic and fact where Pelmetheads views are in mad hatter world. Bring back the death penalty, then watch his face as one of his own family gets wrongly convicted, sent to the slammer and strung up by the neck. "Oops.....ooerr we made a mistake. Sorry Mr Pelmet head we've just snuffed your family member out by mistake....you don't mind do you?" Doubt he'd be so vocal then and would end up singing (crying) from a different hymn sheet. ;-) That risk may apply to your family Bullet ;-) ........But I'd say there's more chance of mine winning the lottery than ending up in court for murder :D ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 That risk may apply to your family Bullet ;-) ........But I'd say there's more chance of mine winning the lottery than ending up in court for murder :D ....... Have you checked that statement out with your wife Dave? Only kidding ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted November 25, 2017 Author Share Posted November 25, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-11-26 4:56 AMStuartO - 2017-11-25 9:00 AMBrian Kirby - 2017-11-25 9:58 AM.... it seems we'd still have to release the offender to be able to know whether the treatment had worked. Then, if it didn't work, whose would be the fault? If a reformer fails repeatedly then his method is demonstrably failing, and he should be dropped. Problem is before he can be sacked he has to have failed repeatedly, meaning the position regarding re-offenders won't be that much changed. You're a great one for non sequiturs Brian - of course it's the offender's fault if he offends again, so he pays the price, but his failure may also indicate failure by the reformer who passed him as ready for release, so he comes under the microscope too. And why are you assuming it's necessary for repeat failures to have occured before we can take remedial action - isn't one failure enough for a reviewing judgement to be justified? If you overlay your liberal ideas of giving people the benefit of multiple mistakes (as if they were somehow fundamental things) before we protect the public from these offenders, we put innocent lives and lifestyles at risk. I don't accept that offenders have rights to liberty at all. My argument is that once an individual becomes an offender (arguably for any non-trivial offence, at any age) society has the right to make risk-management judgements about protecting members of society from them. We are entitled to make judgements (or to use judges and/or probabtion officers to make judgements for us) and if in doubt, we can lock 'em up for our own protection anytime we want to. Well Stuart you did say this: " I think I would determine the point at which we write someone off in terms of the practicability of reforming them. We set a budget for reform services (what we can afford) and appoint the best people that budget can buy to do the work and be accountable for the results; if an individual fails to respond as predicted, we write them off. We might also sack the reformer who fails too."What I see is a convenient argument, but not a particularly realistic one, I'm afraid. Trying to modify people's behaviour is notoriously difficult. Changing the behaviour of those who demonstrate repeated irrationality even more so. If you want to sack the psychiatrist who thinks he has succeeded and subsequently finds he has not, fine. Go ahead. My suspicion is that you'll quickly run out of psychiatrists willing to risk their reputations in so high risk an arena. What then? People claim that if capital punishment were reintroduced it would deter murderers. From memory, murders were committed when we had capital punishment, and the murder rate did not suddenly spike up when it was abolished. I'll grant it is cheaper than prison, but when the cases of mistaken identity are taken into account it is the reputation of the criminal justice system that suffers, and that also has its dangers. All I'm trying to argue is that simple answers to complex human behavioural problems, no matter how seductive at first sight, are likely to prove mirages. It is not a world of 2 + 2 = 4. The answer can be anywhere between 1.5 and about 6, and on-one yet adequately understands this branch of maths. If we did, we'd have already fixed the problem. Logic and rationality just don't seem to work in this world. I'm sure we can improve on what we already do, but it will be time consuming, demanding of resource, and expensive. Otherwise, I guess we'll carry on much as we are, with prisons that merely keep people off the streets for a while. What you seem to be saying there Brian is that we should accept an obligation to prove (beyond reasonable doubt?) that offenders are a continuing risk to others before we keep them locked up while I see it the other way around - the conviction showed that they were a risk to the public, so they must satisfy us that they are no longer a risk before we decide to let them out. You think that offenders have rights (for example to paid lawyers to argue their case) while I think they sacrifice their rights (beyond shelter and bread and water etc) until we decide they have earned some again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-11-25 1:56 PMStuartO - 2017-11-25 9:00 AMBrian Kirby - 2017-11-25 9:58 AM.... it seems we'd still have to release the offender to be able to know whether the treatment had worked. Then, if it didn't work, whose would be the fault? If a reformer fails repeatedly then his method is demonstrably failing, and he should be dropped. Problem is before he can be sacked he has to have failed repeatedly, meaning the position regarding re-offenders won't be that much changed. You're a great one for non sequiturs Brian - of course it's the offender's fault if he offends again, so he pays the price, but his failure may also indicate failure by the reformer who passed him as ready for release, so he comes under the microscope too. And why are you assuming it's necessary for repeat failures to have occured before we can take remedial action - isn't one failure enough for a reviewing judgement to be justified? If you overlay your liberal ideas of giving people the benefit of multiple mistakes (as if they were somehow fundamental things) before we protect the public from these offenders, we put innocent lives and lifestyles at risk. I don't accept that offenders have rights to liberty at all. My argument is that once an individual becomes an offender (arguably for any non-trivial offence, at any age) society has the right to make risk-management judgements about protecting members of society from them. We are entitled to make judgements (or to use judges and/or probabtion officers to make judgements for us) and if in doubt, we can lock 'em up for our own protection anytime we want to. Well Stuart you did say this: " I think I would determine the point at which we write someone off in terms of the practicability of reforming them. We set a budget for reform services (what we can afford) and appoint the best people that budget can buy to do the work and be accountable for the results; if an individual fails to respond as predicted, we write them off. We might also sack the reformer who fails too."What I see is a convenient argument, but not a particularly realistic one, I'm afraid. People claim that if capital punishment were reintroduced it would deter murderers. From memory, murders were committed when we had capital punishment, and the murder rate did not suddenly spike up when it was abolished. I'll grant it is cheaper than prison, but when the cases of mistaken identity are taken into account it is the reputation of the criminal justice system that suffers, and that also has its dangers.We need look no further than states in the US which carry the death penalty for murder to see it simply doesn't work. Also in many US cases plea bargaining is commonplace and results in the death sentence being removed in exchange for a guilty plea.pelmetman - 2017-11-25 1:58 PMThat risk may apply to your family Bullet ;-) ........But I'd say there's more chance of mine winning the lottery than ending up in court for murder :D .......Anyone can commit murder, you don't even need be physically capable, so i wouldn't gamble if i were you.Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 2:22 PMHave you checked that statement out with your wife Dave? Only kidding ;-)Closer to the truth than you'd think actually.I like watching real life crime documentaries and there are lots of US ones on CBS Reality. They are interesting to watch as their detective work is sloppy by comparison to ours and the convictions are often dodgy but some of the cases are completely off the scale.....real fruit loops.One husband/wife murder involved a young woman who met and married a much older man. He'd seduced her with convincing tales of super wealth and she seduced him with her young fit body. Seemed a fair exchange? But he was a con-man and his super wealth was just smoke and mirrors. Most people would simply have kicked themselves for being so daft and walked away. But not her....oh no....she wanted the lot including the big ranch house.Divorce? Nooooooo.......too complicated and would take too long. She wanted a "quickie" and besides he'd got a million $ life insurance policy. So she hired two men to murder him and dump the body.Remember he was a con-man. So when she went to collect on his life policy, her dream world came crashing down......he'd forged the policy!! (lol)Sentenced to life for murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 StuartO - 2017-11-25 3:13 PM...............What you seem to be saying there Brian is that we should accept an obligation to prove (beyond reasonable doubt?) that offenders are a continuing risk to others before we keep them locked up while I see it the other way around - the conviction showed that they were a risk to the public, so they must satisfy us that they are no longer a risk before we decide to let them out. You think that offenders have rights (for example to paid lawyers to argue their case) while I think they sacrifice their rights (beyond shelter and bread and water etc) until we decide they have earned some again. Yes, at a philosophical level, I think that is what I'm arguing. I'm very uneasy about the idea that the right to due process should be interfered with, and that is what you seem to me to be advocating. I half caught an interesting reference on the radio a day or so back, to the fact that many of the inmates of our prisons are mentally disturbed. That has seemed to me self-evident for years. If that is true, it seems to me that the repeat offenders should be diagnosed, and where possible treated, not merely locked up to keep them off the streets. We do this with those described as criminally insane, and some do successfully apply for release. But even at this level it is not black and white. I don't know if it is still the case, but Broadmoor was generally reserved for those of above average intelligence, Rampton for psychopaths, and Ashworth for those of lower than average intelligence. So, even among the criminally insane it was found necessary to separate them into broad categories because mixing them resulted in violent conflicts. The average stay is said to be about 6 years, but some have remained for over 30 years. People guilty of repeated violence and brutality are obviously not so extreme, but seem to me to be somewhere on a similar spectrum, albeit their crimes are more of nuisance value than murderous. If they could be detained in a similar way, at institutions designed and staffed to treat the treatable, and identify the incurable, I think we may make better progress. However, if what we want is total freedom from risk, we shall have to hold our noses and give up on due process for individuals on the basis of their patterns of behaviour rather than on diagnosis of mental illness. That concept does, as I said above, make me uneasy, because it gives the state far wider powers of detention than at present. It feels to me like a slippery slope, and I'd sooner we didn't embark down it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted November 25, 2017 Author Share Posted November 25, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-11-26 9:23 AM.....However, if what we want is total freedom from risk, we shall have to hold our noses and give up on due process for individuals on the basis of their patterns of behaviour rather than on diagnosis of mental illness. That concept does, as I said above, make me uneasy, because it gives the state far wider powers of detention than at present. It feels to me like a slippery slope, and I'd sooner we didn't embark down it. I don't think exercising judgement about the risk of release to the public is in any way abandonment of due process. A convicted offender has his rights of appeal against sentence etc but as a convicted offender who might otherwise be due for release, I think Society's rights (to make a judgement about the risk of release) come into potentially overriding play. I don't think there is any obligation on Society to prove anything at all, rather Society should be free to make a risk assessment and to choose whether to release or not, based on that. And it should be a judicial decision, not a pschiatric or any other sort of "expert" decision, although of course the judge might choose to listen to experts. But this is Society's risk assesment, not another trial in which the offender has rights to argue and to use lawyers. The offender is merely the subject of the assesment and the decision is based on the balance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 2:22 PM That risk may apply to your family Bullet ;-) ........But I'd say there's more chance of mine winning the lottery than ending up in court for murder :D ....... Have you checked that statement out with your wife Dave? Only kidding ;-) Well seeing as we've been married 35 years, and next month we will have spent 2 years full time in the camper ;-) ......... I reckon if she was going to do me in, she'd of done it by now :D ...... Dunno about "Mr Angry" aka Bullet though? :-S ........ Maybe a few migrants would help him chill a bit >:-) ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 StuartO - 2017-11-25 7:00 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-11-26 9:23 AM.....However, if what we want is total freedom from risk, we shall have to hold our noses and give up on due process for individuals on the basis of their patterns of behaviour rather than on diagnosis of mental illness. That concept does, as I said above, make me uneasy, because it gives the state far wider powers of detention than at present. It feels to me like a slippery slope, and I'd sooner we didn't embark down it. And it should be a judicial decision, not a pschiatric or any other sort of "expert" decision, although of course the judge might choose to listen to experts. But this is Society's risk assesment, not another trial in which the offender has rights to argue and to use lawyers. The offender is merely the subject of the assesment and the decision is based on the balance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where a convict is seeking parole or due release it's impossible to dispense with psychiatric reports and assessments for them not to be heard and it would be pretty crass to ignore, especially if that person has had a history of mental health and received treatment whilst in prison.It's not a matter of 'choosing' to listen to experts.....he has to. If you've been in hospital for any length of time after an operation, before being discharged your Consultant will need all your records from medical staff, particularly junior doctors in order to conclude a decision. He cannot simply discharge you because he thinks you look ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 12:53 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 12:03 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). So if I have got this right less than 1% of all people convicted of homicide over a ten year period had previously committed murder. I think it likely that you are right that CSI and DNA testing would result in fewer miscarriages of justice but I don't believe that it would be conclusive in every case. I don't seek to make light of the deaths of 40 people. However, the difference between you and I on this subject is that I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. So what if its a utilitarian argument? *-) ........ As far as I'm concerned the deaths those 47 victims, far outweigh the minuscule chance of someone being convicted of murder by mistake >:-( ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 12:53 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 12:03 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). So if I have got this right less than 1% of all people convicted of homicide over a ten year period had previously committed murder. I think it likely that you are right that CSI and DNA testing would result in fewer miscarriages of justice but I don't believe that it would be conclusive in every case. I don't seek to make light of the deaths of 40 people. However, the difference between you and I on this subject is that I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. So what if its a utilitarian argument? *-) ........ As far as I'm concerned the deaths those 47 victims, far outweigh the minuscule chance of someone being convicted of murder by mistake >:-( ........ You are assuming that having the death penalty would produce a better outcome in terms of the reduction of the loss of life. You can’t draw that conclusion from the statistics you quote. You might have got rid of the murderers who went on to kill a further forty people over a 10-year period but you don’t know whether having the death penalty during that period would have seen the death rate from unlawful killing rate rise even further. E.g. It is known that murder rates in the US are higher in the states that have the death penalty than those which do not have it. So far no one has been able to establish that there is a causal link between having the death penalty and the murder rate. If you want to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number you would have to establish that there is such a link. Even if the statistics show that there has been an increase in murders since the death penalty was abolished it cannot be established that it is the sole, main or even minor contributing factor to that increase. So, I prefer the “rule utilitarian” approach which delivers the clear message that deliberately killing someone you don’t have to kill but could lock up is as wrong as murder. Anything else is a fudge which blurs the line between what is moral and what is not. You are quite entitled to your own view of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek pringle Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 hi, The greatest mistake was when we abolished the death sentence [something I agreed with by the way ] we shouldn't have done so without substituting it for Life meaning Life Prison Sentences. To remove a deterrent and not replace it with a substitute was a mistake. I know judges have the power to determine but a killer should KNOW what his/her sentence will be if found guilty. cheers derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted November 26, 2017 Author Share Posted November 26, 2017 derek pringle - 2017-11-27 12:35 AMhi, The greatest mistake was when we abolished the death sentence [something I agreed with by the way ] we shouldn't have done so without substituting it for Life meaning Life Prison Sentences. To remove a deterrent and not replace it with a substitute was a mistake. I know judges have the power to determine but a killer should KNOW what his/her sentence will be if found guilty.cheersderek I agree. Some people who get convicted of murder get a tariff of less than ten years. The premeditated killing of someone else, which is the definition of murder, should mean you face life imprisonment, full stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 9:33 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 12:53 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 12:03 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). So if I have got this right less than 1% of all people convicted of homicide over a ten year period had previously committed murder. I think it likely that you are right that CSI and DNA testing would result in fewer miscarriages of justice but I don't believe that it would be conclusive in every case. I don't seek to make light of the deaths of 40 people. However, the difference between you and I on this subject is that I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. So what if its a utilitarian argument? *-) ........ As far as I'm concerned the deaths those 47 victims, far outweigh the minuscule chance of someone being convicted of murder by mistake >:-( ........ You are assuming that having the death penalty would produce a better outcome in terms of the reduction of the loss of life. You can’t draw that conclusion from the statistics you quote. You might have got rid of the murderers who went on to kill a further forty people over a 10-year period but you don’t know whether having the death penalty during that period would have seen the death rate from unlawful killing rate rise even further. I know that they'd be 47 people probably still alive today, if their killers had received the death penalty ......... For me that is enough to bring back the black cap :-| ........and if we had a referendum on it I suspect much like BREXIT I'd be with the majority >:-) ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 StuartO - 2017-11-26 9:47 AMderek pringle - 2017-11-27 12:35 AMhi, The greatest mistake was when we abolished the death sentence [something I agreed with by the way ] we shouldn't have done so without substituting it for Life meaning Life Prison Sentences. To remove a deterrent and not replace it with a substitute was a mistake. I know judges have the power to determine but a killer should KNOW what his/her sentence will be if found guilty.cheersderek I agree. Some people who get convicted of murder get a tariff of less than ten years. The premeditated killing of someone else, which is the definition of murder, should mean you face life imprisonment, full stop.The offence of Murder in the UK law is committed when someone dies as a result of an intentional act on the part of another either to kill or to cause them grievous bodily harm. Premeditation doesn't feature in the definition of murder but the degree of premeditation can be reflected in the minimum term to be served set by the Judge. The penalty for murder is fixed by law and it is a life sentence. Judges set the minimum term to be served according to a set of principles that can be found here:https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Murder-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdfI think if you read through those principles it would be rare for someone to be given a minimum tariff of 10 years for the premeditated act of killing a person whom they intended to kill. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-26 10:28 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 9:33 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 12:53 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 12:03 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). So if I have got this right less than 1% of all people convicted of homicide over a ten year period had previously committed murder. I think it likely that you are right that CSI and DNA testing would result in fewer miscarriages of justice but I don't believe that it would be conclusive in every case. I don't seek to make light of the deaths of 40 people. However, the difference between you and I on this subject is that I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. So what if its a utilitarian argument? *-) ........ As far as I'm concerned the deaths those 47 victims, far outweigh the minuscule chance of someone being convicted of murder by mistake >:-( ........ You are assuming that having the death penalty would produce a better outcome in terms of the reduction of the loss of life. You can’t draw that conclusion from the statistics you quote. You might have got rid of the murderers who went on to kill a further forty people over a 10-year period but you don’t know whether having the death penalty during that period would have seen the death rate from unlawful killing rate rise even further. I know that they'd be 47 people probably still alive today, if their killers had received the death penalty ......... For me that is enough to bring back the black cap :-| ........and if we had a referendum on it I suspect much like BREXIT I'd be with the majority >:-) ......... Where you see simplicity, I see complexity Dave. You can’t say that the lack of the death penalty was responsible for the deaths of these people because their killers might not have been convicted of murder previously if there had been a death penalty. Don’t forget that murderers often plead not guilty and have to go on trial. Modern juries, aware that the death penalty would be imposed if they convict, may be more inclined to give a murderer the benefit of the doubt so that more murderers go free only to kill again. What’s more we still don’t know whether more people would have been murdered over the same period if we had the death penalty. For example, there’s the “in for a penny in for a pound” mentality of some, namely “I’ve killed one of this group of people I am going to die for it might as well take all of ’em with me”. Retribution is understandably high on the agenda when it comes to the sentencing of murderers but I am not convinced that there is any evidence to show that the reintroduction of the death penalty would reduce the numbers of people that are unlawfully killed or that the UK would be a safer place if it was brought back. There are both practical and moral arguments in favour or against. Abandoning the moral argument against the deliberate killing of a person by the state, as I know it doesn’t find favour with everyone, I maintain that there is little evidential support for the practical argument that we need the death penalty so as to secure a reduction in the number of people who are murdered. I venture what would be uppermost in the minds of those asked to take part in a referendum on the re-introduction of the death penalty would be retribution; an emotional and understandable human response, but neither a rational or informed one if the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of murder victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-11-25 9:06 PM StuartO - 2017-11-25 7:00 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-11-26 9:23 AM.....However, if what we want is total freedom from risk, we shall have to hold our noses and give up on due process for individuals on the basis of their patterns of behaviour rather than on diagnosis of mental illness. That concept does, as I said above, make me uneasy, because it gives the state far wider powers of detention than at present. It feels to me like a slippery slope, and I'd sooner we didn't embark down it. And it should be a judicial decision, not a pschiatric or any other sort of "expert" decision, although of course the judge might choose to listen to experts. But this is Society's risk assesment, not another trial in which the offender has rights to argue and to use lawyers. The offender is merely the subject of the assesment and the decision is based on the balance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where a convict is seeking parole or due release it's impossible to dispense with psychiatric reports and assessments for them not to be heard and it would be pretty crass to ignore, especially if that person has had a history of mental health and received treatment whilst in prison.It's not a matter of 'choosing' to listen to experts.....he has to. If you've been in hospital for any length of time after an operation, before being discharged your Consultant will need all your records from medical staff, particularly junior doctors in order to conclude a decision. He cannot simply discharge you because he thinks you look ok. Yes. If the expert medical opinions are not sought, or are ignored, due process has failed. The most likely consequence of that would be an appeal, and off we should go again. What judge would be willing to proceed on that basis? So, what would be the basis for deciding who was released and who detained? Just their record of repeat offending? It seems to me that the offender's mental state and "lifestyle" must also be taken into account. Who, as a matter of choice, would adopt a life of being in and out of prison? It has no appeal to me, but then I'm (more or less :-D) rational. I value the freedom to come and go when I choose and how I choose. I derive no pleasure from violence. I don't go looking for arguments and fights. I'm aware that a minority do, but I don't/can't understand why. To me they are abnormal, out of control, sociopaths or similar, and need to be corrected, or excluded from society. I don't do drugs, though I'm aware that some do, and that some of them have so damaged themselves in the process that their craving dominates their behaviour. They also need to be corrected, or excluded from society. I doubt if it is feasible to put a timescale on how long it would take before it is possible to conclude that an individual is now "safe" to release, or must be detained indefinitely. Personally, I'm happy for that decision to be taken by the medical professions. I'm also happy for their treatment to be coercive and not voluntary, as an absolute pre-condition for release, on the basis that there is no release if they don't co-operate, and that once they enter therapy they don't get released until judged fit. But, to try to hand these judgements over to lawyers alone just smacks to me of kangaroo courts. Of the selective abolition of due process for people who are seen as a repeated nuisance. As I said above, I think that approach gives the state the right to select who fits the category and then determine who is incarcerated, and who not. What then, of habeas corpus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.