Death Penalty

[Walker]

You are just plain evil...

"Good God*, that's even worse!"
- Norm MacDonald, r.i.p.


* He may have said Lord. In fact, I think he did. He said it was his response when he was told he wasn't funny, just after he was fired from Saturday Night Live.

And just to be clear, my funny is appropriately addressed to you, I think that's allowed.

Norm MacDonald died? That's a shame

He kept his illness a secret for nine or ten years.

- Lots of implications in that action, for speculation. For instance, does one allow loved ones into the last act, or does one spare them until the one big dose of a shock?

- For instance, I think that his stoic secrecy can be explained by Kipling’s poem, If.


Relevance to the Death Penalty? I’ve thought long about murderers and concluded that a reasonable and good man, driven to murder, must realize in an instant that he has crossed a line that will forever separate him from the human race, because when all the chips are down, he cannot be trusted, and there’s no going back from that. A good man driven to murder would eventually, if not instantly, welcome the Death Penalty and would skip all the superfluous societal ritual between here and there. This doesn’t say much to advocate prison rehab., which exists because of society’s perpetual hope for life. Perhaps graduates of prison rehab programs have learned to accept and unapologetically live with the identity of being a bad-person, without trying to Face-book an idealized identity*.

Now I ask the thinking you ... does this sound like the musing of a clown?


* Speculation, since I've heard of the Facebook but never participated, sensing that it's somehow wrong.

[Sculptor]

Killing people will not make this stop.
She would not have wanted it, as her surviving family do not want that either.
Why would you want to cover her dead hands in the blood of YOUR vengeance?

She did want things at one time. She doesn't want anything anymore. She's dead, and there's another, and another, and another - when do we say this is unacceptable? It's not about what the family wants. It's about what's good for society. It's about deterrent. It's also about the £50,000 per year to keep trash locked up - and the danger they pose to society when released, and forever after. It's about the money not spent on housing, schools, roads, hospitals - spent instead on feeding, clothing, housing, heating, entertaining - people who have committed crimes that are inhuman in character. Crimes the disregard and grossly violate the human rights of others. Why should they have a right to life? When they could be swinging in Parliament Square as a statement: We look after our people. Instead, we look after child molesters, rapists and killers. It's wrong.

Yes. she is dead. So stop pissing on her grave.

I don't think I'm doing that, but I'd happily piss on her killers grave!

He'll get plenty of shit sandwiches for the rest of his puff in gaol. A far more fitting punishment that a quick stretch of his neck. This has the added bonus of ensuring, that when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do, he might have a chance at freedom. And that argument is far more compelling than your desire to piss on his grave.

Wrongful conviction is rare since CCTV, DNA,

Bullshit

[Vitruvius]

Killing people will not make this stop.
She would not have wanted it, as her surviving family do not want that either.
Why would you want to cover her dead hands in the blood of YOUR vengeance?

She did want things at one time. She doesn't want anything anymore. She's dead, and there's another, and another, and another - when do we say this is unacceptable? It's not about what the family wants. It's about what's good for society. It's about deterrent. It's also about the £50,000 per year to keep trash locked up - and the danger they pose to society when released, and forever after. It's about the money not spent on housing, schools, roads, hospitals - spent instead on feeding, clothing, housing, heating, entertaining - people who have committed crimes that are inhuman in character. Crimes the disregard and grossly violate the human rights of others. Why should they have a right to life? When they could be swinging in Parliament Square as a statement: We look after our people. Instead, we look after child molesters, rapists and killers. It's wrong.

Yes. she is dead. So stop pissing on her grave.

I don't think I'm doing that, but I'd happily piss on her killers grave!

He'll get plenty of shit sandwiches for the rest of his puff in gaol. A far more fitting punishment that a quick stretch of his neck. This has the added bonus of ensuring, that when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do, he might have a chance at freedom. And that argument is far more compelling than your desire to piss on his grave.

Wrongful conviction is rare since CCTV, DNA, cell phone location data and so on, that didn't exist when the death penalty was abolished in 1965. The danger of wrongful conviction back then was a powerful argument, but not anymore. It's in unicorn territory now. Also, since 1965 - things have changed dramatically. Such crimes are increasingly commonplace, when in 1965, they were unicorn type crimes. The calculation has changed. We just don't have the resources to lock up the massive numbers of shit-bags wandering around. Time to start stringing up the real nasty ones as a statement, and/or cost saving exercise!

Bullshit

Daniel Candler
Detective Constable at London Metropolitan Police (1992-present)

There is a vast difference between “wrongly convicted" and “successful in appeal against conviction.”

Over the past 5 years, the average successful appeal rate is 6.7% of appealed cases.

Only 3% of convicted cases go to appeal, and so the overall percentage of overturned convictions is 0.201%.

Sentence reduction is more successful, running at 18% of appeals but the conviction still stands.

Complete miscarriages of justice are very, very rare these days in light of the prevalence of CCTV, body worn video, advances in forensic science and a more regimented method of obtaining witness evidence.

The test applied by the prosecutor has to account for strength of evidence, weaknesses, culpability of the accused, age of the accused, the public interest in pursuing the matter, risk of exposing covert methodology and whether, on a balance of probability, a court is likely to return a finding of guilt.

The disclosure rules under CPIA 1996 have also vastly reduced any opportunity to accidentally or unlawfully withhold exculpatory material.

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days… despite some protestations at the nature of the offence for which they were convicted.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-court-ca ... on-average

[Sculptor]

Killing people will not make this stop.
She would not have wanted it, as her surviving family do not want that either.
Why would you want to cover her dead hands in the blood of YOUR vengeance?

She did want things at one time. She doesn't want anything anymore. She's dead, and there's another, and another, and another - when do we say this is unacceptable? It's not about what the family wants. It's about what's good for society. It's about deterrent. It's also about the £50,000 per year to keep trash locked up - and the danger they pose to society when released, and forever after. It's about the money not spent on housing, schools, roads, hospitals - spent instead on feeding, clothing, housing, heating, entertaining - people who have committed crimes that are inhuman in character. Crimes the disregard and grossly violate the human rights of others. Why should they have a right to life? When they could be swinging in Parliament Square as a statement: We look after our people. Instead, we look after child molesters, rapists and killers. It's wrong.

Yes. she is dead. So stop pissing on her grave.

I don't think I'm doing that, but I'd happily piss on her killers grave!

He'll get plenty of shit sandwiches for the rest of his puff in gaol. A far more fitting punishment that a quick stretch of his neck. This has the added bonus of ensuring, that when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do, he might have a chance at freedom. And that argument is far more compelling than your desire to piss on his grave.

Wrongful conviction is rare since CCTV, DNA, cell phone location data and so on, that didn't exist when the death penalty was abolished in 1965. The danger of wrongful conviction back then was a powerful argument, but not anymore. It's in unicorn territory now. Also, since 1965 - things have changed dramatically. Such crimes are increasingly commonplace, when in 1965, they were unicorn type crimes. The calculation has changed. We just don't have the resources to lock up the massive numbers of shit-bags wandering around. Time to start stringing up the real nasty ones as a statement, and/or cost saving exercise!

Bullshit

Daniel Candler
Detective Constable at London Metropolitan Police (1992-present)

There is a vast difference between “wrongly convicted" and “successful in appeal against conviction.”

Over the past 5 years, the average successful appeal rate is 6.7% of appealed cases.

Only 3% of convicted cases go to appeal, and so the overall percentage of overturned convictions is 0.201%.

Sentence reduction is more successful, running at 18% of appeals but the conviction still stands.

Complete miscarriages of justice are very, very rare these days in light of the prevalence of CCTV, body worn video, advances in forensic science and a more regimented method of obtaining witness evidence.

The test applied by the prosecutor has to account for strength of evidence, weaknesses, culpability of the accused, age of the accused, the public interest in pursuing the matter, risk of exposing covert methodology and whether, on a balance of probability, a court is likely to return a finding of guilt.

The disclosure rules under CPIA 1996 have also vastly reduced any opportunity to accidentally or unlawfully withhold exculpatory material.

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days… despite some protestations at the nature of the offence for which they were convicted.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-court-ca ... on-average

Circular argumentation.
Run along now.

[Vitruvius]

Killing people will not make this stop.
She would not have wanted it, as her surviving family do not want that either.
Why would you want to cover her dead hands in the blood of YOUR vengeance?

She did want things at one time. She doesn't want anything anymore. She's dead, and there's another, and another, and another - when do we say this is unacceptable? It's not about what the family wants. It's about what's good for society. It's about deterrent. It's also about the £50,000 per year to keep trash locked up - and the danger they pose to society when released, and forever after. It's about the money not spent on housing, schools, roads, hospitals - spent instead on feeding, clothing, housing, heating, entertaining - people who have committed crimes that are inhuman in character. Crimes the disregard and grossly violate the human rights of others. Why should they have a right to life? When they could be swinging in Parliament Square as a statement: We look after our people. Instead, we look after child molesters, rapists and killers. It's wrong.

Yes. she is dead. So stop pissing on her grave.

I don't think I'm doing that, but I'd happily piss on her killers grave!

He'll get plenty of shit sandwiches for the rest of his puff in gaol. A far more fitting punishment that a quick stretch of his neck. This has the added bonus of ensuring, that when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do, he might have a chance at freedom. And that argument is far more compelling than your desire to piss on his grave.

Wrongful conviction is rare since CCTV, DNA, cell phone location data and so on, that didn't exist when the death penalty was abolished in 1965. The danger of wrongful conviction back then was a powerful argument, but not anymore. It's in unicorn territory now. Also, since 1965 - things have changed dramatically. Such crimes are increasingly commonplace, when in 1965, they were unicorn type crimes. The calculation has changed. We just don't have the resources to lock up the massive numbers of shit-bags wandering around. Time to start stringing up the real nasty ones as a statement, and/or cost saving exercise!

Bullshit

Daniel Candler
Detective Constable at London Metropolitan Police (1992-present)

There is a vast difference between “wrongly convicted" and “successful in appeal against conviction.”

Over the past 5 years, the average successful appeal rate is 6.7% of appealed cases.

Only 3% of convicted cases go to appeal, and so the overall percentage of overturned convictions is 0.201%.

Sentence reduction is more successful, running at 18% of appeals but the conviction still stands.

Complete miscarriages of justice are very, very rare these days in light of the prevalence of CCTV, body worn video, advances in forensic science and a more regimented method of obtaining witness evidence.

The test applied by the prosecutor has to account for strength of evidence, weaknesses, culpability of the accused, age of the accused, the public interest in pursuing the matter, risk of exposing covert methodology and whether, on a balance of probability, a court is likely to return a finding of guilt.

The disclosure rules under CPIA 1996 have also vastly reduced any opportunity to accidentally or unlawfully withhold exculpatory material.

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days… despite some protestations at the nature of the offence for which they were convicted.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-court-ca ... on-average

Circular argumentation.
Run along now.

No. It's evidence to refute your assertion: "when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do." I could post graphs and statistics, but this a good readable summary of the reality. The wrongful conviction argument against the death penalty has no weight in the modern day.

[Sculptor]

Killing people will not make this stop.
She would not have wanted it, as her surviving family do not want that either.
Why would you want to cover her dead hands in the blood of YOUR vengeance?

She did want things at one time. She doesn't want anything anymore. She's dead, and there's another, and another, and another - when do we say this is unacceptable? It's not about what the family wants. It's about what's good for society. It's about deterrent. It's also about the £50,000 per year to keep trash locked up - and the danger they pose to society when released, and forever after. It's about the money not spent on housing, schools, roads, hospitals - spent instead on feeding, clothing, housing, heating, entertaining - people who have committed crimes that are inhuman in character. Crimes the disregard and grossly violate the human rights of others. Why should they have a right to life? When they could be swinging in Parliament Square as a statement: We look after our people. Instead, we look after child molesters, rapists and killers. It's wrong.

Yes. she is dead. So stop pissing on her grave.

I don't think I'm doing that, but I'd happily piss on her killers grave!

He'll get plenty of shit sandwiches for the rest of his puff in gaol. A far more fitting punishment that a quick stretch of his neck. This has the added bonus of ensuring, that when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do, he might have a chance at freedom. And that argument is far more compelling than your desire to piss on his grave.

Wrongful conviction is rare since CCTV, DNA, cell phone location data and so on, that didn't exist when the death penalty was abolished in 1965. The danger of wrongful conviction back then was a powerful argument, but not anymore. It's in unicorn territory now. Also, since 1965 - things have changed dramatically. Such crimes are increasingly commonplace, when in 1965, they were unicorn type crimes. The calculation has changed. We just don't have the resources to lock up the massive numbers of shit-bags wandering around. Time to start stringing up the real nasty ones as a statement, and/or cost saving exercise!

Bullshit

Daniel Candler
Detective Constable at London Metropolitan Police (1992-present)

There is a vast difference between “wrongly convicted" and “successful in appeal against conviction.”

Over the past 5 years, the average successful appeal rate is 6.7% of appealed cases.

Only 3% of convicted cases go to appeal, and so the overall percentage of overturned convictions is 0.201%.

Sentence reduction is more successful, running at 18% of appeals but the conviction still stands.

Complete miscarriages of justice are very, very rare these days in light of the prevalence of CCTV, body worn video, advances in forensic science and a more regimented method of obtaining witness evidence.

The test applied by the prosecutor has to account for strength of evidence, weaknesses, culpability of the accused, age of the accused, the public interest in pursuing the matter, risk of exposing covert methodology and whether, on a balance of probability, a court is likely to return a finding of guilt.

The disclosure rules under CPIA 1996 have also vastly reduced any opportunity to accidentally or unlawfully withhold exculpatory material.

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days… despite some protestations at the nature of the offence for which they were convicted.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-court-ca ... on-average

Circular argumentation.
Run along now.

No. It's evidence to refute your assertion: "when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do." I could post graphs and statistics, but this a good readable summary of the reality. The wrongful conviction argument against the death penalty has no weight in the modern day.

It does not refute anything.
Despite all the forensice science in the world innocent people are still going to gaol. Evidence can be, and is faked. Whilst people can be sent to gaol with zero forensics and false witness statements.
You are desperately naive, and ignorant.

[Vitruvius]

Killing people will not make this stop.
She would not have wanted it, as her surviving family do not want that either.
Why would you want to cover her dead hands in the blood of YOUR vengeance?

She did want things at one time. She doesn't want anything anymore. She's dead, and there's another, and another, and another - when do we say this is unacceptable? It's not about what the family wants. It's about what's good for society. It's about deterrent. It's also about the £50,000 per year to keep trash locked up - and the danger they pose to society when released, and forever after. It's about the money not spent on housing, schools, roads, hospitals - spent instead on feeding, clothing, housing, heating, entertaining - people who have committed crimes that are inhuman in character. Crimes the disregard and grossly violate the human rights of others. Why should they have a right to life? When they could be swinging in Parliament Square as a statement: We look after our people. Instead, we look after child molesters, rapists and killers. It's wrong.

Yes. she is dead. So stop pissing on her grave.

I don't think I'm doing that, but I'd happily piss on her killers grave!

He'll get plenty of shit sandwiches for the rest of his puff in gaol. A far more fitting punishment that a quick stretch of his neck. This has the added bonus of ensuring, that when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do, he might have a chance at freedom. And that argument is far more compelling than your desire to piss on his grave.

Wrongful conviction is rare since CCTV, DNA, cell phone location data and so on, that didn't exist when the death penalty was abolished in 1965. The danger of wrongful conviction back then was a powerful argument, but not anymore. It's in unicorn territory now. Also, since 1965 - things have changed dramatically. Such crimes are increasingly commonplace, when in 1965, they were unicorn type crimes. The calculation has changed. We just don't have the resources to lock up the massive numbers of shit-bags wandering around. Time to start stringing up the real nasty ones as a statement, and/or cost saving exercise!

Bullshit

Daniel Candler
Detective Constable at London Metropolitan Police (1992-present)

There is a vast difference between “wrongly convicted" and “successful in appeal against conviction.”

Over the past 5 years, the average successful appeal rate is 6.7% of appealed cases.

Only 3% of convicted cases go to appeal, and so the overall percentage of overturned convictions is 0.201%.

Sentence reduction is more successful, running at 18% of appeals but the conviction still stands.

Complete miscarriages of justice are very, very rare these days in light of the prevalence of CCTV, body worn video, advances in forensic science and a more regimented method of obtaining witness evidence.

The test applied by the prosecutor has to account for strength of evidence, weaknesses, culpability of the accused, age of the accused, the public interest in pursuing the matter, risk of exposing covert methodology and whether, on a balance of probability, a court is likely to return a finding of guilt.

The disclosure rules under CPIA 1996 have also vastly reduced any opportunity to accidentally or unlawfully withhold exculpatory material.

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days… despite some protestations at the nature of the offence for which they were convicted.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-court-ca ... on-average

Circular argumentation.
Run along now.

No. It's evidence to refute your assertion: "when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do." I could post graphs and statistics, but this a good readable summary of the reality. The wrongful conviction argument against the death penalty has no weight in the modern day.

It does not refute anything. Despite all the forensice science in the world innocent people are still going to gaol. Evidence can be, and is faked. Whilst people can be sent to gaol with zero forensics and false witness statements. You are desperately naive, and ignorant.

I don't find that convincing. How do you know all this? It would seem, were that the case - that it would be a secret. How do you know of this secret conspiracy to 'so so often' fabricate evidence that it makes the death penalty inherently unsafe? Clearly, you don't. Having lost the argument you'll say anything - and insult me. If you we're winning the argument you wouldn't be ad homming all over the place.

What I've been thinking about is; in a supposed Inhuman Crimes Act - how one would define an inhuman crime. This would have to be defined in law - such that the criteria could be applied by a Death Panel; that after conviction would re-examine the case, the evidence, psychiatric reports and whatever else they chose to examine - even witnesses, and anyone involved if they chose, to determine whether the crime constitutes an inhuman crime - that forfeits the human right of a right to life.

I think this would act as a strong safeguard against sending a wrongfully convicted person - if such a unicorn existed, to their death.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Killing people will not make this stop.
She would not have wanted it, as her surviving family do not want that either.
Why would you want to cover her dead hands in the blood of YOUR vengeance?

She did want things at one time. She doesn't want anything anymore. She's dead, and there's another, and another, and another - when do we say this is unacceptable? It's not about what the family wants. It's about what's good for society. It's about deterrent. It's also about the £50,000 per year to keep trash locked up - and the danger they pose to society when released, and forever after. It's about the money not spent on housing, schools, roads, hospitals - spent instead on feeding, clothing, housing, heating, entertaining - people who have committed crimes that are inhuman in character. Crimes the disregard and grossly violate the human rights of others. Why should they have a right to life? When they could be swinging in Parliament Square as a statement: We look after our people. Instead, we look after child molesters, rapists and killers. It's wrong.

Yes. she is dead. So stop pissing on her grave.

I don't think I'm doing that, but I'd happily piss on her killers grave!

He'll get plenty of shit sandwiches for the rest of his puff in gaol. A far more fitting punishment that a quick stretch of his neck. This has the added bonus of ensuring, that when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do, he might have a chance at freedom. And that argument is far more compelling than your desire to piss on his grave.

Wrongful conviction is rare since CCTV, DNA, cell phone location data and so on, that didn't exist when the death penalty was abolished in 1965. The danger of wrongful conviction back then was a powerful argument, but not anymore. It's in unicorn territory now. Also, since 1965 - things have changed dramatically. Such crimes are increasingly commonplace, when in 1965, they were unicorn type crimes. The calculation has changed. We just don't have the resources to lock up the massive numbers of shit-bags wandering around. Time to start stringing up the real nasty ones as a statement, and/or cost saving exercise!

Bullshit

Daniel Candler
Detective Constable at London Metropolitan Police (1992-present)

There is a vast difference between “wrongly convicted" and “successful in appeal against conviction.”

Over the past 5 years, the average successful appeal rate is 6.7% of appealed cases.

Only 3% of convicted cases go to appeal, and so the overall percentage of overturned convictions is 0.201%.

Sentence reduction is more successful, running at 18% of appeals but the conviction still stands.

Complete miscarriages of justice are very, very rare these days in light of the prevalence of CCTV, body worn video, advances in forensic science and a more regimented method of obtaining witness evidence.

The test applied by the prosecutor has to account for strength of evidence, weaknesses, culpability of the accused, age of the accused, the public interest in pursuing the matter, risk of exposing covert methodology and whether, on a balance of probability, a court is likely to return a finding of guilt.

The disclosure rules under CPIA 1996 have also vastly reduced any opportunity to accidentally or unlawfully withhold exculpatory material.

So in short… very, very, very few people, if any are wrongly convicted these days… despite some protestations at the nature of the offence for which they were convicted.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-court-ca ... on-average

Circular argumentation.
Run along now.

No. It's evidence to refute your assertion: "when the cops, and the courts, get it wrong, as they so so often do." I could post graphs and statistics, but this a good readable summary of the reality. The wrongful conviction argument against the death penalty has no weight in the modern day.

It does not refute anything. Despite all the forensice science in the world innocent people are still going to gaol. Evidence can be, and is faked. Whilst people can be sent to gaol with zero forensics and false witness statements. You are desperately naive, and ignorant.

I don't find that convincing. How do you know all this? It would seem, were that the case - that it would be a secret. How do you know of this secret conspiracy to 'so so often' fabricate evidence that it makes the death penalty inherently unsafe? Clearly, you don't. Having lost the argument you'll say anything - and insult me. If you we're winning the argument you wouldn't be ad homming all over the place.

What I've been thinking about is; in a supposed Inhuman Crimes Act - how one would define an inhuman crime. This would have to be defined in law - such that the criteria could be applied by a Death Panel; that after conviction would re-examine the case, the evidence, psychiatric reports and whatever else they chose to examine - even witnesses, and anyone involved if they chose, to determine whether the crime constitutes an inhuman crime - that forfeits the human right of a right to life.

I think this would act as a strong safeguard against sending a wrongfully convicted person - if such a unicorn existed, to their death.

You really are clueless, pitifully naive, with no grasp of human nature. It's hardly unknown for the the police to tamper with evidence, and the police are notorious for fixating on a suspect no matter what and building their case around that one person--which often has disastrous consequences.

[Sculptor]

It does not refute anything. Despite all the forensice science in the world innocent people are still going to gaol. Evidence can be, and is faked. Whilst people can be sent to gaol with zero forensics and false witness statements. You are desperately naive, and ignorant.

I don't find that convincing. ..

That is because you are not only stupid, but lack imagination too

[Vitruvius]

You really are clueless, pitifully naive, with no grasp of human nature.

If that were true, what good would it do to just tell me? I wouldn't have the ability to distinguish between the know nothing fuckwit posting barely coherent ad homs to derail a discussion that I think you are, and whatever you are if you're not that - would I?

It's hardly unknown for the the police to tamper with evidence, and the police are notorious for fixating on a suspect no matter what and building their case around that one person--which often has disastrous consequences.

In a capital crime? Fitted up for a noose? With all the attention such crimes draw - forensics crawling all over, superintendent called in, and PC Whatsisface is going to tamper with the crime scene to implicate an innocent party? And the CPS, prosecution, judge, jury and death panel - are all going buy into this? And despite protestations of innocence, the defence will be unable to cast reasonable doubt? If that were the script for a TV crime drama - it wouldn't get made because it would be insulting to the audience!

[Vitruvius]

It does not refute anything. Despite all the forensic science in the world innocent people are still going to gaol. Evidence can be, and is faked. Whilst people can be sent to gaol with zero forensics and false witness statements. You are desperately naive, and ignorant.

I don't find that convincing. ..

That is because you are not only stupid, but lack imagination too

So, are you saying that someone can be stupid, but imaginative? I would have thought that one implied the other; that necessarily a stupid person lacks imagination.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You really are clueless, pitifully naive, with no grasp of human nature.

If that were true, what good would it do to just tell me? I wouldn't have the ability to distinguish between the know nothing fuckwit posting barely coherent ad homs to derail a discussion that I think you are, and whatever you are if you're not that - would I?

It's hardly unknown for the the police to tamper with evidence, and the police are notorious for fixating on a suspect no matter what and building their case around that one person--which often has disastrous consequences.

In a capital crime? Fitted up for a noose? With all the attention such crimes draw - forensics crawling all over, superintendent called in, and PC Whatsisface is going to tamper with the crime scene to implicate an innocent party? And the CPS, prosecution, judge, jury and death panel - are all going buy into this? And despite protestations of innocence, the defence will be unable to cast reasonable doubt? If that were the script for a TV crime drama - it wouldn't get made because it would be insulting to the audience!

Well done on the self-awareness. You really are a know-nothing fuckwit. Doesn't matter what examples I give, you will only come up with an excuse like 'oh, but that was BEFORE advanced DNA testing blah blah' as if that has miraculously made the police 100 percent honest and beyond reproach. Fuckwit.

[Vitruvius]

You really are clueless, pitifully naive, with no grasp of human nature.

If that were true, what good would it do to just tell me? I wouldn't have the ability to distinguish between the know nothing fuckwit posting barely coherent ad homs to derail a discussion that I think you are, and whatever you are if you're not that - would I?

It's hardly unknown for the the police to tamper with evidence, and the police are notorious for fixating on a suspect no matter what and building their case around that one person--which often has disastrous consequences.

In a capital crime? Fitted up for a noose? With all the attention such crimes draw - forensics crawling all over, superintendent called in, and PC Whatsisface is going to tamper with the crime scene to implicate an innocent party? And the CPS, prosecution, judge, jury and death panel - are all going buy into this? And despite protestations of innocence, the defence will be unable to cast reasonable doubt? If that were the script for a TV crime drama - it wouldn't get made because it would be insulting to the audience!

Well done on the self-awareness. You really are a know-nothing fuckwit. Doesn't matter what examples I give, you will only come up with an excuse like 'oh, but that was BEFORE advanced DNA testing blah blah' as if that has miraculously made the police 100 percent honest and beyond reproach. Fuckwit.

Is it the death penalty you dislike, or is it me, or the police and the courts, because casting aspersions in such a wide arc - adds nothing. I'm stupid, the police are corrupt, the courts are gullible - all to justify your opposition? I don't think so. Why not just say you oppose it on principle - as it's probably nearer the truth. I could respect that; I'd respectfully disagree - but this is not respectable. Nor is it interesting. Do you have to agree with everything you discuss? Is that how limited you are? Are you aware that in structured debate, you are often required to adopt the position with which you disagree? Your principled objection is noted. Have you anything to add?

[Vitruvius]

What I've been thinking about is; in a supposed Inhuman Crimes Act - how one would define an inhuman crime? This would have to be defined in law - such that the criteria could be applied by a Death Panel; that after conviction would re-examine the case, the evidence, psychiatric reports and whatever else they chose to examine, to determine whether the crime constitutes an inhuman crime - that forfeits the human right of a right to life. I think this would act as a strong safeguard against sending a wrongfully convicted person - if such a unicorn existed, to their death.

[Vitruvius]

Minimally, an Inhuman Crime would have to meet the following criteria:

1. Intent to commit crime.
2. Innocence of victim.
3. Life changing harm or death.
4. Outraging public decency. (in view of panel)