Reply to: Paedophile to be beheaded and crucified in Saudi Arabia

[xoggoth]

Beyond reasonable doubt is just an unrealised ideal most of the time. Juries do not make rational decisions, emotional arguments are used all the time by council from both sides to sway the jury.

The experts are no better. People are often convicted wrongly, what about that woman put away because some "expert" on cot death and her lawyers did not grasp the simple fact that probabilities should only be multiplied if there is not a common cause? There is currently an over reliance on DNA evidence. Do a Google for some of the errors a study in the US threw up on that one. If our wonderful scientists can test cows' brains for 6 years thinking they are sheeps' brains (or was it the other way round?) what is to stop them mixing up scene of crime and suspect evidence?

Official execution by the state is pretty distasteful in my view, we should have moved beyond that, but mainly I disike it because I simply do not trust the state machine to get things right.

[Paddy]

It could be an option for those caught in the act where there is no element of doubt.

What would be the definition of caught in the act? Does that mean arrested at the time by the witness? Even at the best of times people memories are poor and play tricks. There has been a number of murder cases overturned where there has been people wrongly identified by witnesses. Even DNA can give false matches or even worse DNA can be planted either by the perpetrator or the police.

The best deterrent is actually catching the perpetrator.

[RichardCranium]

In fact I tend to agree with you, but being devil's advocate, they get loads of time & opportunities to appeal, witness:
"Death row inmates in the U.S. typically spend over a decade awaiting execution. Some prisoners have been on death row for well over 20 years."

Therefore one an be sure that the conviction is safe.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

Indeed. In 2006, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that there has not been "a single case - not one - in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent's name would be shouted from the rooftops."

So, should the American system ever execute an innocent person, it will be shouted from the rooftops.

[George Parr]

But why does the fact that someone saw you doing it mean you deserve a more severe punishment than if you did it down a dark alley when nobody was looking?

They both deserve the same punishment if they are both guilty but if there is any element of doubt then captial punishment is not appropriate in case a miscarriage of justice had occured IMHO.

[DiscoStu]

Presently the courts will convict if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I was saying that capital punishment could be an option for sentencing a murderer if, and only if, there is no doubt at all e.g. if he was caught in the act.

But why does the fact that someone saw you doing it mean you deserve a more severe punishment than if you did it down a dark alley when nobody was looking?

[George Parr]

If there's an element of doubt should they be convicted in the first place?

If we had a perfect justice system that could 100% guarantee that someone was guilty, then I don't think I'd have a problem with capital punishment. Until we get one, I can't agree with it being used.

Presently the courts will convict if there is proof beyond reasonable doubt. I was saying that capital punishment could be an option for sentencing a murderer if, and only if, there is no doubt at all e.g. if he was caught in the act.

[singhr]

So it's ok for the state to kill innocent people because it's no more unfair than someone being murdered. Not sure I follow your argument...

of course it's not ok, I guess it's just the lesser of two evils. Hopefully 'our' state won't kill the same number of innocent people they are notching up in Iraq and Afghanistan eh?

[Moose423956]

ME, they like to keep their traditions alive

But not necessarily their prisoners....

[AtW]

Not sure I follow your argument...

Under his argument you won't follow it since you'll be killed....

[EternalOptimist]

<ahem>What about the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)...</ahem>

Well thats the whole point isnt it ? about the justice system, and being sure you get the right guy.

In that case they were on the trail but the wrong one got crucified

[DiscoStu]

agreed, but about the same degree of unfairness as someone who loses their life because matey has killed before and fancies doing it again.

So it's ok for the state to kill innocent people because it's no more unfair than someone being murdered. Not sure I follow your argument...

[DiscoStu]

It could be an option for those caught in the act where there is no element of doubt.

If there's an element of doubt should they be convicted in the first place?

If we had a perfect justice system that could 100% guarantee that someone was guilty, then I don't think I'd have a problem with capital punishment. Until we get one, I can't agree with it being used.

[singhr]

Yes, but it's slightly unfair on those who may have never offended in the first place.

agreed, but about the same degree of unfairness as someone who loses their life because matey has killed before and fancies doing it again.

[George Parr]

Yes, but it's slightly unfair on those who may have never offended in the first place.

It could be an option for those caught in the act where there is no element of doubt.

[DiscoStu]

It stops them re-offending though doesn't it.

Yes, but it's slightly unfair on those who may have never offended in the first place.