| Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Sentencing for Murder (Death?); Monday Poll #7 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 11 2016, 12:39 AM (642 Views) | |
| Steve K | Jan 11 2016, 12:39 AM Post #1 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
![]() A classic topic, in effect the death penalty. Please pick the option closest to your view or use the write in option. What should be the default penalty for premeditated Murder? Feel free to debate the topic here but remember once you have cast your vote, it is cast and cannot be changed. The Poll will end on or shortly after 10pm Thursday 14th. (As this is a priority 'Monday' Poll I will be bumping the thread from time to time although it's in a dedicated sub forum that should auto bump with each vote) |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 11 2016, 12:47 AM Post #2 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If it can be proven beyond any shadow of doubt and it is a unanimous verdict from the jury that the decision is beyond reasonable doubt, then yes, I would go along with the death penalty, but I see no option in the above choices that would give me that choice, and I would not like to be seen as a compassionless bastard. I await guidance on this, very important vote.
Edited by Rich, Jan 11 2016, 12:49 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2016, 12:53 AM Post #3 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Assume so proven I've edited the question to be The default penalty for proven premeditated murder should be . . Hopefully that clarifies |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 11 2016, 12:58 AM Post #4 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am obliged.
|
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 11 2016, 07:50 AM Post #5 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Whilst I am a supporter of the death penalty the choices in the poll are somewhat simplistic. A premeditated murder would currently include mercy killings. |
![]() |
|
| Stonefish | Jan 11 2016, 08:40 AM Post #6 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Fairly easily cleared up,mercy killings aside you'd support the death penalty then yes? |
![]() |
|
| papasmurf | Jan 11 2016, 08:41 AM Post #7 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I always have been a supporter of the death penalty. |
![]() |
|
| Cymru | Jan 11 2016, 01:08 PM Post #8 |
|
Alt-Right
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I voted "Death if a second (or mass) murder". For me the grounds for sentencing someone to death is if they have taken more than one life or taken one life and attempted to take others, and all this is proven by forensic evidence. A confession would be a bonus but not required. |
![]() |
|
| Happy Hornet | Jan 11 2016, 01:10 PM Post #9 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't support the death penalty as long as there is a risk, however small, of an innocent person being killed. There would have been a few of those over the last few decades as well had we had the death penalty. For me murder should result in a life sentence with no chance of parole. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2016, 01:12 PM Post #10 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The question says default penalty and for murder not manslaughter I'm not going to clarify it further. This poll worked fine when I ran it in another place some years ago |
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Jan 11 2016, 01:26 PM Post #11 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I am not a supporter...How many people have been executed who were probably innocent.. The death penalty is institutionalised murder.. Surprisingly enough, that which all of these people were executed for?? |
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Jan 11 2016, 01:28 PM Post #12 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Someone who has made plans to (and does) ''euthanise'' another who is afflicted with a terminal/debilitating illness- in great pain etc will be charged with murder in exactly the same way as a burglar ,when confronted by the householder , hits them with a bronze figurine/pushes them down the stairs and kills them or another who kills because the victim looked at them oddly. Counsel representing the former has to try to fit the specific criteria of the defences created in the Homicide Act to try to reduce the charge to manslaughter or to persuade them to plead insanity. It's further complicated if the 'euthaniser' is a family member who stands to benefit from a wealthy victim's will or a suicide pact where one party is interrupted/revived etc I would support allowing the judge full discretion in sentencing |
![]() |
|
| skwirked | Jan 11 2016, 01:29 PM Post #13 |
|
On Enforced Vacation
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes I agree with you. |
![]() |
|
| Opinionater | Jan 11 2016, 08:48 PM Post #14 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't know. Now that's unusual for me not to hold a view but I have shifted opinion on this several times. First I would have gone for Death then I changed my mind due to the risk if getting the wrong person. Institutionalised murder, that doesn't give me any problem. So death for a second murder is a maybe but it still has a risk of getting the wrong person, so still not sure. Life with no parole, no can't go for that, holding someone with no hope and nothing to look forward to I think is a recipe for trouble. imprisonment for a defined time as now maybe as good as it gets. But having said that I think a prison sentence with an educational and phycological assesment could be a way to go, a reabilitation sentence, think that's what I would go for, release after a minimium term and after reaching an acceptable level after assessment. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 11 2016, 08:54 PM Post #15 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I always found the Enoch Powell argument on this very convincing: If juries know the guilty verdict means death then they will be a lot less likely to convict no matter what the evidence. And a not guilty verdict for a murderer means freedom to murder again |
![]() |
|
| Tigger | Jan 11 2016, 11:22 PM Post #16 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not a supported of the death penalty, but you'd not catch me protesting outside a prison on the morning a child killer was being put to death. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 11 2016, 11:27 PM Post #17 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Not really much point in me contributing, as most already know. There's a chap I'd hang myself if I was offered the chance. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 11 2016, 11:30 PM Post #18 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well OK, I suppose the easy way to torpedo THAT is to remove the bit that demands it as the only possible mandatory penalty and just leave it as one of many the judge has to choose from. And a juror who isn't willing to string up a murderer isnlt fit to be a bloody juror end of. |
![]() |
|
| Bruv | Jan 11 2016, 11:39 PM Post #19 |
|
Junior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I can't see how 'Murder' is wrong, except if the state murders. |
![]() |
|
| RoofGardener | Jan 13 2016, 10:39 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Lord of Plantpots
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I've gone for the 4th option: life, but with the possibility of parole. I don't believe in the death penalty; I do not think our jurisprudence system is robust enough to avoid the possibility of mistakes. Even when a murderer is released from jail, they are never truly "free" - they are under observation for the rest of their lives. It's almost like a form of "release under license" ... any transgressions and they get the fast-track back to prison again. It's not perfect - but for me it is the most appropriate application of the 'precautionary principle'. Edited by RoofGardener, Jan 13 2016, 10:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Jan 13 2016, 05:07 PM Post #21 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
There are varying degrees of murder..such as Ronald King..an 87 yr old.who shot his wife in a care home.. His wife was suffering from senile dementia.. When asked ''why he did it?''..he replied..''She'd had enough!''
Edited by marybrown, Jan 13 2016, 05:10 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 13 2016, 05:09 PM Post #22 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which actually means he'd had enough |
![]() |
|
| marybrown | Jan 13 2016, 05:11 PM Post #23 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Maybe he'd just had enough watching her suffer? |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 13 2016, 11:51 PM Post #24 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
One day to go and there's no real clear outcome of this poll And I doubt there will be now |
![]() |
|
| Rich | Jan 14 2016, 12:35 AM Post #25 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
A very difficult decision to have on ones conscience if one is a juror, and though I voted the way I did, I could still not bring myself to actually carry out the task, what sort of person that takes I cannot imagine, but when you consider how much it has cost the taxpayer to incarcerate the likes of Peter Sutcliffe and for this length of time when there was not a shred of doubt about his guilt, at least Harold Shipman had the decency to do the right thing.....imo. |
![]() |
|
| Opinionater | Jan 14 2016, 07:44 AM Post #26 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Such a mixed bag I would say if policy were to be based on this no change would seem to be a reasonable position to take. I would think many would support the death penalty if they could be sure only killer received it and there was no risk of an innocent person being put to death. Maybe we should have it for serial killers. |
![]() |
|
| Happy Hornet | Jan 14 2016, 10:09 AM Post #27 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The problem with saying that you have the death penalty but only for those whose guilt is beyond question is that you then effectively create two tiers of guilty. Guilty enough for the DP and just guilty enough for prison. Am I the only one who sees potential problems with this? Like say, some smarmy lawyer saying"well your honour, the fact that my client wasn't given the death penalty means there must be some degree of doubt about his guilt." |
![]() |
|
| Gand | Jan 14 2016, 11:55 AM Post #28 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I have gone for “Life but may release after judge's min tariff.” Although I don’t think the minimum sentence for some crimes is always set high enough I can understand why many people would like to see capital punishment reintroduced, There are people guilty of certain crimes that I feel deserve a death penalty. However, I am also aware that this is an opinion driven by emotion and maybe not a good system for sentencing people. I don’t think all acts of murder warrant a death penalty, for example a woman who kills her husband after years of domestic abuse, could well end up being found guilty and may face a death penalty. Another issue is that you will probably end up executing innocent people. Guilt would have to be established without doubt. This could be hard to establish as what criteria could be used to establish this absence of doubt and who would be trustworthy enough to decide that there was no doubt as to that person’s guilt, there will still be an element of subjectivity, I don’t think it could be reliable. To establish guilt without doubt could also mean that the perpetrators of the most horrific crimes may not face execution. It is sometimes argued the evidence from DNA testing would eliminate doubt. This could mean that a sadistic child killer who tortures and rapes his victims then buries them, when those bodes are finally exhumed they are so badly decomposed that there is no DNA evidence, therefore there could be doubt. This could mean that the woman who killed her husband I mentioned previously, if there was such DNA evidence could be executed but the really nasty guy who many of us would probably like to see die a horrible death would get to live … not really justice. Edited by Gand, Jan 14 2016, 11:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 14 2016, 10:36 PM Post #29 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well we're hopelessly split on this aren't we but seems most want something at least as harsh as now
|
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Jan 15 2016, 12:32 AM Post #30 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The Roy Meadow's scandal should be more than enough evidence to show that innocent people would be convicted and executed if the DP was restored. The juries convicted as they were blinded by an ''expert'' witness whose evidence was proven to be wholly unreliable http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4685511.stm |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 15 2016, 08:20 AM Post #31 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Just as there are two degrees of innocence then. Innocent enough for the Home Secretary to be "MINDED to allow an appeal into the original verdict in the face of new evidence and "NOT Innocent enough to convince the Home Secretary that new evidence warrants an appeal" I have always maintained it is for a judge, prosecution, defence and jury to test evidence. A politician has no right to such. And MY desire for the punishment to be put back on the shelf with the remainder of punishments also available stems from my belief it may be a fitting one for the crime of which one is found guilty rather than the degree of guilt. The jury's job is to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". Once again I say if a jury is not able to do that they should be dismissed and a new lot brought in. That is, after all, what happens now in some cases ... Edited by johnofgwent, Jan 15 2016, 08:22 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Ewill | Jan 15 2016, 07:28 PM Post #32 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Which sort of appeals are you saying the HS holds sway over? Not trial appeals, the separation of powers means that lines are not crossed |
![]() |
|
| AndyK | Jan 18 2016, 10:20 PM Post #33 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I voted for death on a purely pragmatic stance. It is pointless and expensive keeping people locked up forever. |
![]() |
|
| johnofgwent | Jan 19 2016, 07:48 AM Post #34 |
|
It .. It is GREEN !!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I refer mainly to matters past. I could pull some high profile political examples out of a hat as naturally I have a few in mind, but I feel that would divert the discussion from the point I was making, which is that it was a fact that the appeal process always had a mechanism whereby the Home Secretary had the last word on the opening of every appeal process against criminal conviction and could veto an appeal by simple utterance of the phrase "I am not minded to allow this appeal" and that was that. I have the most clear memory of several Home Secretaries using those very words in front of a BBC microphone, although for some reason the person I most associate with it is Michael Howard, and before him Merlyn Rees. As I said above I think allowing political interference with justice is not a good idea. I quite strongly feel the decision as to the question of whether fresh evidence or a new interpretation of previous evidence in the light of advances in technology or understanding can be said to prejudice a verdict is a matter for a bloke in a wig in a court, not a bloke in a suit in the house of commons. If you must have an example, which will neatly blow your assertion that the home secretary has )or had) no such power over criminal cases, then maybe you should read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Linda_Cook as it quite categorically supports the very statement I was making, stating that the then Home Secretary Michael Howard used his power as Home Secretary to deny the appeal against conviction using the phrase he was "not minded to permit it". Edited by johnofgwent, Jan 19 2016, 08:02 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew Brady | Jan 23 2016, 05:51 PM Post #35 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Without substantial mitigating circumstances, the default punishment for murder should be death. I understand concerns about wrongful conviction, which are indeed serious, but to my mind, the sufficient, albeit imperfect means of mitigating this risk is requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. At that point, deserved punishment should be administered and administered swiftly, both because it is just, and because I think the realistic prospect of death within months (not after 10 years or more behind bars) would be a significantly more powerful deterrent to a premeditated murder than 15-20 years behind bars. Certainly the abolition of the death penalty is not the only change since the early 60s, but when we had the death penalty, we did have far less crime and fewer violent deaths, even though medical advances have substantially reduced the rate of which violent crimes kill people. The increase in crime and disorder easily outweighs the handful of people who have been spared wrongful execution. No, you cannot bring someone back from the dead. But nor can you restore to them whatever years they have lost behind bars, nor is there any guarantee that a wrongful conviction would every be overturned. And if spending years behind bars from a crime you didn't commit is a grievous wrong, which most would say it is, then unless you are to do away with all significant punishments, there is no way of eliminating the risk of a serious miscarriage of justice. If the prospect of wrongful conviction is sufficient reason to not execute someone convicted of a crime which deserves death, I cannot see a compelling argument against saying that by the same token, it poses an unacceptable risk to imprison them for life. The former is worse than the latter only as a matter of degree; it is not fundamentally different in my view. Edited by Matthew Brady, Jan 23 2016, 05:58 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Affa | Jan 27 2018, 10:43 PM Post #36 |
|
Senior Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Mat Brady comes closest to my position. There can be mitigating circumstances ....... temporary mental illness of course, but also the perpetrator seeing his actions as a just cause for wrong doing. I freely admit that I have wanted to kill some of the isis criminals, and those Rotherham molesters inspired enough in me to want them slaughtered. |
![]() |
|
| Bliss | Jan 27 2018, 10:46 PM Post #37 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I would also add a murder conviction to women who abort or/and try to abort a baby, giving them a death penalty should stop women thinking they have the right to murder innocent beings for the utmost selfish of reasons. |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 27 2018, 10:48 PM Post #38 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Interesting that since the Poll closed the votes for death have more than doubled But the result was the result, maybe we should do a rerun |
![]() |
|
| Bliss | Jan 27 2018, 10:49 PM Post #39 |
|
Regular Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh god.. More referendums |
![]() |
|
| Steve K | Jan 27 2018, 10:57 PM Post #40 |
|
Once and future cynic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Monday Polls · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2




![]](http://z5.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






8:30 AM Jul 11