Death Penalty

[Alex]

After Lee Anderson said he would welcome a return of the death penalty under certain circumstances, the media is now full of it !    Having a go at Anderson , to be expected 2nd day in the job gerroff ! 

For the likes of Lee Rigby killers I'd say yes, hang them.  Some child killers too would get my vote for elimination.   It won't happen of course, not in woke Britain but I guess we're still allowed to talk about it - for now.

[Michael Rolls]

but for how long, I wonder?

[Cassandra]

After Lee Anderson said he would welcome a return of the death penalty under certain circumstances, the media is now full of it !    Having a go at Anderson , to be expected 2nd day in the job gerroff ! 

For the likes of Lee Rigby killers I'd say yes, hang them.  Some child killers too would get my vote for elimination.   It won't happen of course, not in woke Britain but I guess we're still allowed to talk about it - for now.

Anderson was only put up to fail, another cynical example of Tory machination as the Tsunami of failure's wrath draws ever closer.

[Jacqueline]

Another thing the the ECHR won't allow.  I am in two minds about this, I do think you would have to be very careful, there have been many cases of innocent people being hung, I would only consider it if they were caught red handed like the Lee Rigby case, Brady and Hindley, Shipman etc.  anybody found guilty on circumstantial evidence I would not want given the death penalty. The law is a strange thing, look at poor Derek Bentley, he didn't even shoot the policeman, yet he was hung and the other chap who did it didn't serve that many years and was free.  Timothy Evans hung for the murders that Christie did, the Irish bomber cases they would all have been hung and were proved innocent.  I am really not sure if this is a good idea, but parliament would never pass the law anyway.

I am sure Cassandra will give us some welcome guidance.

[Diasi]

Another thing the the ECHR won't allow.  I am in two minds about this, I do think you would have to be very careful, there have been many cases of innocent people being hung, I would only consider it if they were caught red handed like the Lee Rigby case, Brady and Hindley, Shipman etc.  anybody found guilty on circumstantial evidence I would not want given the death penalty. The law is a strange thing, look at poor Derek Bentley, he didn't even shoot the policeman, yet he was hung and the other chap who did it didn't serve that many years and was free.  Timothy Evans hung for the murders that Christie did, the Irish bomber cases they would all have been hung and were proved innocent.  I am really not sure if this is a good idea, but parliament would never pass the law anyway.

I am sure Cassandra will give us some welcome guidance.

In my opinion the Irish bombers were not found innocent, the evidence that convicted them was trashed by crafty lawyers who managed, among other things, to convince the courts that the bombers had got traces of explosives on their hands from a pack of playing cards & their conviction was quashed.

So far as I'm concerned, Derek Bentley was guilty under joint enterprise, but once again some campaigning lawyer convinced the court that "let him have it" meant "please let the nice police officer have the gun so he can arrest us & we can go to prison", when anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that "let him have it" meant "shoot the bugger".

[Cassandra]

What I never here mentioned is the recent emergence of DNA into the equation. Based upon evidence from that source, which is virtually unassailable, I would have had no reason to deny the death penalty. But also the sentences secondary to murder must be re-inforced. People like Carrick should know upon sending down that they will never see freedom again. The Liberalists appeal that it's cruel to contain, without any hope of release - so be it,

Mea Maxa culpa

[Cassandra]

In my opinion the Irish bombers were not found innocent, the evidence that convicted them was trashed by crafty lawyers who managed, among other things, to convince the courts that the bombers had got traces of explosives on their hands from a pack of playing cards & their conviction was quashed.

So far as I'm concerned, Derek Bentley was guilty under joint enterprise, but once again some campaigning lawyer convinced the court that "let him have it" meant "please let the nice police officer have the gun so he can arrest us & we can go to prison", when anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows that "let him have it" meant "shoot the bugger".

It's all in the intonation of expression, which can never be irrevocably reproduced after the incident is passed. At that time American gangster films were broadly prevalent and the quote 'let him have it' meant only one thing. Craig was unable to be sentenced to death as he was statute barred by his age at the time.

I always felt it was dangerous to convict Bentley and he was posthumously pardoned in 1998. Christopher Craig, Bentley's accomplice in the murder of PC Miles, was seen as the villain by the media. However he was unable to be sentenced to death, being statute barred by his age at the time of the murder. Law Lord's Bingham and Goddard fell into deep dispute and acrimony which lasted their lifetimes over the way sentencing was passed on what is known as 'joint enterprise'. This was significantly overhauled, only as recently as 2019.

[Cassandra]

Another thing the the ECHR won't allow.  I am in two minds about this, I do think you would have to be very careful, there have been many cases of innocent people being hung, I would only consider it if they were caught red handed like the Lee Rigby case, Brady and Hindley, Shipman etc.  anybody found guilty on circumstantial evidence I would not want given the death penalty. The law is a strange thing, look at poor Derek Bentley, he didn't even shoot the policeman, yet he was hung and the other chap who did it didn't serve that many years and was free.  Timothy Evans hung for the murders that Christie did, the Irish bomber cases they would all have been hung and were proved innocent.  I am really not sure if this is a good idea, but parliament would never pass the law anyway.

I am sure Cassandra will give us some welcome guidance.

I am clear that in the cases of Terrorism and the sadistic planned cruelty of people like Dennis Nielsen, or the duplicity and horror of Harold Shipman there should only be one sentence - death. The opponents to this view array their belief that murderers are not influenced in their decision to kill by the remit of law and they may be right. However there still exists the case for retributive justice, whether or not it acts as a deterrent. I have defended murderers who killed in an outburst of savage physicality, betrayed in marriage etc, with neither planning or aforethought. Others of quite the opposite inclination, who's very presence reviled me. They truly presented necromancy, where just being in a cell alone with them during detention or trial was bordering upon the very portals of ultimate evil. These I would see hung, many of them iniquitously bad people, with black souls. I hope none of the detractors from my viewpoint will ever have to look into the eyes of unrelenting and schematic devilry the way I had too at times.

However in today's Governmental morass it would seem very unlikely upon appeal that an erroneous body like the ECHR would ever permit anyone to die by way of an English Court's sentence.

So really the whole topic is rendered meaningless, as we will never leave the said organisation, it's far too convenient for the jobsworths of our society to either lean upon, or utilise as a shield to obscure objective rationale.

[JBR]

Another thing the the ECHR won't allow. 

Sod the ECHR.  We have been dictated to by foreign organisations, especially those based in Europe, for far too long and to our own disadvantage.

And yes, I would always vote for the return of capital punishment and have always agreed with it, certainly if proof of murder is obtained without any doubt.

[Michael Rolls]

me too

[klondike]

I did hear one argument about keeping the ECHR which could even make sense - it protects UK nationals from the UK government as well as Johnny Foreigner....

It was a major reason it got set up - to protect against the likes of Hitler.

[Cassandra]

I did hear one argument about keeping the ECHR which could even make sense - it protects UK nationals from the UK government as well as Johnny Foreigner....

It was a major reason it got set up - to protect against the likes of Hitler.

Yes and there is a deal of sense in that. However the Asian Law firms won't want to appear against the Establishment that provides them with so many Mohammeds to act for!