The Bali 9 and...

[Echnaton]

And as I have said if the evidence is weak enough to be able to leave a shred of doubt in a jury's mind then the death Penalty should NOT be in consideration.

How do you propose that a jury be asked to consider if the evidence is 100% without also simultaneously asking them to consider the death penalty?  Under your proposition they are identical because there is no other reason to determine the 100% state of mind.

[geo7863]

I will reiterate again what I wrote in my first post. I am in favour of the Death Penalty. I am NOT in favour of it in the way that it is currently applied. Hence in it's present form I am NOT in favour of the Death penalty. if it was made more 'fool proof' then yes I  favour it (and it would take a lot of change to make it fool proof!)

Derek Bentley. Say no more.

I was always under the impression that The Bentley case was one of those instrumental for The Death Penalty being abolished in the UK. I certainly don't see how it was carried out for 'political gain' in the UK.

The problem with the Bentley case is that he was tried and executed under the law as it stood at that time. A co-participant in a murder, who didn't actually carry out the murder is just as guilty as the one(s) who did. It's all very well saying that it was a miscarriage of justice because he didn't actually pull the trigger...in which case so was the execution of Dick Turpin for horse theft after all it was only theft and you don't get executed for that nowadays,   The law IS an ass, but you can't say will I disagree with the law at this moment in time, so any sentencing shouldn't apply to person A or B.

The Bentley case WAS undoubtedly a miscarriage of justice , not just because Bentley's words "let him have it Chris" could be misconstrued (and were in fact said about a different  Police officer than the one that was actually 'murdered') but because the Gun that Christopher Craig used probably wasn't even the gun that fired the fatal bullet. The miscarriage was that this wasn't (so I believe) brought up in court. In my 'hypothetical' argument a single bullet (which wasn't even found in any case) when many bullets were fired by more than one person, would NOT be enough for a Death sentence. Whether it is enough for a Life sentence is another question entirely. 

The problem with your argument is that you apply guilt to differing degrees. You choose the murder of Lee Rigby as an example. Yes, the killers of Lee were guilty, there is no question of their guilt. So, according to your argument they should be executed.

However, justice should be balanced. That is fair. You cannot say, well we'll hang those people because their guilt is clear, but not those because there is some doubt. This would be unfair. There are only two other options, have no death penalty, or have a death penalty that executes all those convicted and then say sorry later for the miscarriages of justice.

No I am saying that there are different circumstances in which a murder (or other serious crime) were committed. In the US a unanimous finding by the Jury in any criminal case must be reached before a Guilty verdict. In the UK a majority of at least 10 in a 12 person jury (so by your definition this is not fair as there is clearly some doubt amongst the jury members), and in Scotland at least 8 in a 15 person Jury (also not fair by your definition).

What I am saying is that you MUST have a unanimous finding for any death sentence to be carried out (along with other criteria that I have previously mentioned) So if, for example, ten out of twelve think that a person committed a murder but the other two had some doubt, they could still be found guilty, but the Death sentence not be applied, with a prison sentence instead.

The differing circumstances should and do affect the charges and outcome. For example  Scenario a) Two guys argue in a pub one smacks the other, who then bangs his head on the floor and subsequently dies. NOT a murder, but definitely manslaughter (or the old US 3rd Degree murder). scenario b) Two guys argue in a pub one smacks the other, and when he goes down then continues to punch and kick him even after he cannot 'fight back' the man subsequently dies, is this then a murder? You can argue that he didn't intend to kill the guy but just couldn't stop in the heat of the moment. Scenario c) Two guys argue in a pub one smacks the other and the fight is broken up by others. He then however goes home and returns with a knife because he isn't satisfied with what happened, and does so. Is this a Murder? Yes without a shadow of a doubt. (providing of course that he is seen to commit the murder, is found in possession of the murder weapon and has forensic evidence to prove that it was indeed him who held that weapon at the time of the murder)

And yes I do think the murderers of Lee Rigby should be executed, along with a few others.

ETA: Here is a great example of a reason not to support the death penalty.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32180700

I disagree, not a reason to not support the death penalty but definitely, no shadow of a doubt, a reason to insist on more evidence than just two bullets.

Also a reason why I DON'T support the death penalty, or even criminal Law, as practised in the US currently. Where money determines that you get a decent defence team. in the UK there is legal aid for those who can't afford a lawyer, however if you are rich you can still get a better lawyer than through legal aid, and this shouldn't be so.

The problem with "weak enough" is that no two people will ever agree where to draw that line.

In this regard it's similar to people who say that the death penalty should only be applied in the most heinous cases: where do you draw the line and say, this crime is heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, but that crime is one iota less heinous so doesn't attract the death penalty.

I have to disagree there 'no two people' is too simplistic, of course two people (and more) will know where to draw the line, otherwise how are our currently legal guidelines brought into law? they are not just written by one person.

Similarly there are current guidelines as to crimes considered 'more heinous' than others; Sex crimes more heinous than robbery, Child murder more heinous than the murder of adults.

The death penalty brutalises the society that insist on it.

Does it? I believe that society has failed if we are prepared to forget the rights of, and fail to protect, the innocent law abiding members of society. If such protection is to dispatch those whom commit heinous crimes so be it. There is a quote from William Blackstone "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

I disagree! what about the myriad of innocents to may be affected by the acts of those ten guilty? I'd prefer it if we can try to ensure that no innocent suffers either at the hands of the law or the hands of felons.

No thank you....I do not want to be part of a society that thinks that the answer to terrible crimes is to execute people.

I'm with you on that one.... if the alternatives were harsh enough to reflect the seriousness of the crime. They are NOT in my home country or my county of birth. They are in Places like Russia and the US (although obviously many other aspects of the legal systems are sadly lacking!)

People say it shouldn't be about revenge.  Why not? if someone steps out of society to such an extent were they commit a serious crime, why should they have the benefits that society provides for those who stay within society's boundaries?

It always 'seems' to be about the rights of felons, why shouldn't the victims and their friends and relatives be taken into account? A child rapist in the UK will probably do about 8 years in Jail (that is not a firm researched figure it just seems to be typically what I see on the BBC news website time and time again, round about once a week). What about the potential life of fear and mental pain that the child has or may suffer at the hands of such a rapist? not really important that is it? It seems.

[geo7863]

One of the people set to be executed with the two Bali 9 men is the Frenchman Serge Areski Atlaoui. According to this story (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-05/9-other-prisoners-death-row-with-bali-nine-pair-chan-sukumaran/6130190) he was a welder who accepted a job in a factory which turned out to be a drug laboratory, and after he found this out he tried to leave immediately, only to be arrested. What you say about knowingly flouting a country's laws is quite true, but what about people being executed for crimes it appears they had nothing to do with?

I see nothing in that link that states he tried to leave immediately, and nothing which would convince me that Atlaoui is telling the truth. Of course I don't have his whole defence evidence in front of me.

I'm always uneasy about this argument, as it smacks of punishing a person for a hypothetical crime - the murder they might commit if they're released.

Not at all you are punishing a person for the crime that they have already committed. if a death sentence is indeed carried out then that is 100% protection against further crimes being committed by that felon.

In any case, I can think of a few practical reasons for not executing people:

1. The person may have information about other crimes, leading to the possibility of convictions of other guilty people or the release of innocent people.

2. A prisoner in jail can potentially contribute to society. A dead person can't.

3. Executions are more expensive than life in prison, due to legal costs being higher than incarceration costs.

4. A live prisoner can be charged with further crimes if the evidence warrants it.

1. That can and possibly should be used as a bargaining point, depending on the seriousness of the crime.

2. 'Contribute to society' how? that hints of future release into society again. And for capital offences I have a problem with that. And what about the potential future Einsteins, Steve Jobs, and Neal Armstrongs who may have been murdered by a felon? Take Andy Murray (Scottish Tennis player and I think the UK's number one player ...don't really follow tennis myself anymore) he was a small kid at school in a Scottish town called Dunblane when a madman walked in and then shot and murdered loads of small kids. One of which could easily have been him.

3. In the US undoubtedly so, with their massive money making legal practice system (and the UK is heading the same way...recently lawyers collected a massive fee in a tribunal/enquiry case where they knew a year before the final decision that they couldn't win the case. The Tribunal cost the tax payer over £30 Mill). I would argue against that in other countries

4. yep can't argue with that one.

How far do you think this punishment equivalence should go? Should it be applied on the basis of the killer's intent to cause pain, or on the basis of the victim's actual death?

Both.

The problem is that with the cases I've read about in the USA, cases which at first glance appear watertight end up looking anything but when given a more detailed study.

Then there are the disturbing cases, such as the Willingham case where the (prisoner) witness who claimed Willingham confessed to him later claimed he'd been coerced by the prosecutor with the promise of a reduced sentence if he cooperated; or the case of the Norfolk Four convicted of rape and murder who pleaded guilty to avoid the risk of the death penalty as a result of confessions obtained in the absence of lawyers.

Yes I agree, that's why the criteria for a death Sentence must be absolutely beyond doubt and certainly not based on the claims of a fellow prisoner (unless recorded, in which case you don't really need the fellow prisoner's evidence as a sole entity) or on a confession obtained without a lawyer present (unless recorded by video without any coercion used at all by the police, meaning no mention of the death penalty, some people DO confess to get it off their chest, rather than just to obtain a lesser sentence! also some people are told to stay quiet by their lawyers even in the face of overwhelming evidence)

If a prosecutor wants to be seen as "tough on crime," they go for the death penalty in a situation where even those in favour of it on principle might see it as questionable if they knew the details.  In the US, if you are poor and/or an ethnic minority, you are more likely to end up on Death Row than if you are rich and/or white, because the skill of your lawyer is one of the things that influences which way things will go for you.  There are frankly countless examples of political influence on the death penalty, not actual consideration of evidence.

Ah the US, yes definitely a flawed system there! Doesn't happen in every country though does it?. May I ask does the Governor of a state have the final say as a personal opinion or as a recommendation by a legal team?

[geo7863]

And as I have said if the evidence is weak enough to be able to leave a shred of doubt in a jury's mind then the death Penalty should NOT be in consideration.

How do you propose that a jury be asked to consider if the evidence is 100% without also simultaneously asking them to consider the death penalty?  Under your proposition they are identical because there is no other reason to determine the 100% state of mind.

I don't really understand your question. If the case is a Capital Crime case then presumably the jury must know that they may have to come to a decision which may result in an execution. If there were certain evidence criteria which were conclusive as a whole and not just individually and the jury were unanimous then a guilty verdict with a death sentence would be passed. If either the Evidence taken as a whole were not conclusive or the jury was not unanimous then a guilty verdict could still be given with a lesser sentence.

I am NOT a legal expert (quite obviously) but I would say criteria such as:

1. A weapon (where applicable) with a direct link to the victim and the accused...plus.
2. Forensic medical evidence with a direct link to the victim and the accused (either on the accused or his property)...plus.
3. Forensic evidence which places the victim and the accused at the murder location and/or the area where the victim's corpse is left..plus
4. Motive..plus
5. Opportunity

Possibly more criteria added as required, a witness for example. The point being that if you can't satisfy ALL of the above to reach a unanimous verdict then you cannot impose the death sentence. One or two alone won't suffice.

Whose state of mind? the accused? or the Jury? if the accused then that's a different matter entirely. If you are not considered mentally competent then you should NOT face a death penalty.

[Luke Pemberton]

I will reiterate again what I wrote in my first post. I am in favour of the Death Penalty. I am NOT in favour of it in the way that it is currently applied. Hence in it's present form I am NOT in favour of the Death penalty. if it was made more 'fool proof' then yes I  favour it (and it would take a lot of change to make it fool proof!)

It can never be made fool proof, and there are many examples where people have replied to your OP explaining why this is the case. You are arguing from a position of special circumstances, and 'more fool proof' implies that it will never be 'fool proof', ergo justice will never be blind. That's no basis for a fair justice system for a society in which I with to live.

[Zakalwe]

I will reiterate again what I wrote in my first post. I am in favour of the Death Penalty. I am NOT in favour of it in the way that it is currently applied. Hence in it's present form I am NOT in favour of the Death penalty. if it was made more 'fool proof' then yes I  favour it (and it would take a lot of change to make it fool proof!)

So, in other words you don’t support capital punishment unless it is applied in some circumstances that are unlikely ever to de seen in any human society?

No I am saying that there are different circumstances in which a murder (or other serious crime) were committed. In the US a unanimous finding by the Jury in any criminal case must be reached before a Guilty verdict. In the UK a majority of at least 10 in a 12 person jury (so by your definition this is not fair as there is clearly some doubt amongst the jury members), and in Scotland at least 8 in a 15 person Jury (also not fair by your definition).

What I am saying is that you MUST have a unanimous finding for any death sentence to be carried out (along with other criteria that I have previously mentioned) So if, for example, ten out of twelve think that a person committed a murder but the other two had some doubt, they could still be found guilty, but the Death sentence not be applied, with a prison sentence instead.

What happens when new evidence is uncovered? Or when it is found that the evidence used in the initial case is found to be wanting?

I’m not sure how you square this statement:

And yes I do think the murderers of Lee Rigby should be executed, along with a few others.

With this one:

I will reiterate again what I wrote in my first post. I am in favour of the Death Penalty. I am NOT in favour of it in the way that it is currently applied. Hence in it's present form I am NOT in favour of the Death penalty. if it was made more 'fool proof' then yes I  favour it (and it would take a lot of change to make it fool proof!)

So how would you apply it in the Rigby case?

People say it shouldn't be about revenge.  Why not?

Because we can, and should, be better than that. Basing how you treat people (yes, even the most horrific criminals are people) on an “eye for an eye” has no place in a civilised society for many reasons. The most obvious is that it simply doesn’t work.

It always 'seems' to be about the rights of felons, why shouldn't the victims and their friends and relatives be taken into account? A child rapist in the UK will probably do about 8 years in Jail (that is not a firm researched figure it just seems to be typically what I see on the BBC news website time and time again, round about once a week). What about the potential life of fear and mental pain that the child has or may suffer at the hands of such a rapist? not really important that is it? It seems.

And how exactly would a state-execution do anything for the victim of such crimes, over and above satisfying a primitive urge for an eye for an eye?

[Echnaton]

Here is my point. You have said...

If the case is a Capital Crime case then presumably the jury must know that they may have to come to a decision which may result in an execution.

and

And as I have said if the evidence is weak enough to be able to leave a shred of doubt in a jury's mind then the death Penalty should NOT be in consideration.

Saying the penalty for 100% confidence in guilt of a capital crime is the death penalty is to say that to consider one is to consider the other.  No one could consider any level of confidence beyond reasonable doubt without simultaneously considering the death penalty. 

Unless of course the death penalty was not required in such cases and mitigating factors were allowed.  In which case i don't see how that differs much from the current situation in that a great deal of jury bias could enter into the death penalty consideration when the basic facts of two cases were similar, including the confidence in guilt.

[BazBear]

Others have expressed similar sentiments as I have regarding capital punishment, but I'll add my voice to the choir anyway.

I used to support the death penalty, but until the justice system is perfect - which it never will or can be - I can no longer do so. Too many mistakes have been made, and will be made, for IMO any reasonable person to consider the death penalty a viable option.

Life without possibility of parole does the same job (short of any vengeance motivations some may have), and if a miscarriage of justice is discovered years or decades later, at least the wrongfully convicted can be given back their freedom for their remaining years.

[gillianren]

Not at all you are punishing a person for the crime that they have already committed. if a death sentence is indeed carried out then that is 100% protection against further crimes being committed by that felon.

Do you not see that you're contradicting yourself here?  Future crimes should not be a consideration in any way.  Because unless you're ready to win James Randi's million, you cannot say with any certainty that someone will definitely commit crime in the future--and even if you can, life without the possibility of parole solves the same problem.

2. 'Contribute to society' how? that hints of future release into society again. And for capital offences I have a problem with that. And what about the potential future Einsteins, Steve Jobs, and Neal Armstrongs who may have been murdered by a felon? Take Andy Murray (Scottish Tennis player and I think the UK's number one player ...don't really follow tennis myself anymore) he was a small kid at school in a Scottish town called Dunblane when a madman walked in and then shot and murdered loads of small kids. One of which could easily have been him.

Okay, if the person was a "madman," the solution here is better mental health care, which can prevent these crimes much more effectively than the death penalty.  If you're instead using it as a damning shorthand for "someone who did something awful," don't.

But let me tell you a story.  There is a woman named Leslie Van Houten.  Forty-five years ago, she was convicted of murder and given the death penalty.  Afterward, the US Supreme Court threw out the system as it was then for being cruel and unusual punishment, and the sentences of everyone on Death Row in the US were now life sentences instead.  So she is still alive.  Still in prison, indeed, despite having twenty parole hearings since then.

She has completely atoned for her crime, acknowledging that it was awful and that there is no excuse for it.  It isn't okay because she was under the emotional influence of an evil man.  It isn't okay because she was young and stupid.  Nothing--nothing made her crime okay.  She has repented.  She will never kill again.

What's more, she has spent her time in prison helping others.  She has taken advantage of all the therapy the State of California has to offer.  She has taken advantage of all the classes the State of California has to offer.  Indeed, she has become a teacher.  She helps other inmates, ones who will definitely be getting out, by making them more suited for life outside prison.  She learns and she teaches, both extremely noble pursuits.  Is she going to be Neil Armstrong?  Steve Jobs?  Albert Einstein?  No; leaving aside that she's a senior citizen now, she is not.  But getting an education in prison helps reduce recidivism, so arguably, she's helping to save those innocents as well.

But if the law had been left alone, she would have died decades ago, all those good works left undone.  And that madman she was under the influence of?  Charles Manson.

Ah the US, yes definitely a flawed system there! Doesn't happen in every country though does it?. May I ask does the Governor of a state have the final say as a personal opinion or as a recommendation by a legal team?

A personal opinion.  Oh, they may get the recommendation of a legal team--and they are usually themselves lawyers--but they don't have to pay attention to them.  And I'd note that a governor of Illinois abolished the death penalty a few years back, because there's no way to ensure that it only kills the guilty.  And remember, once someone is executed for a crime, no one looks for another culprit.  So while the innocents that you don't care about are being executed, the guilty are out there, potentially harming the innocents that you do.

[Echnaton]

On a current events note, the trial of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is coming to a close in a few days.  There is little doubt about his guilt.  Any juror could  easily hold total confidence in a guilty decision on the capital charge.

My reading on this indicates the decision allow the death penalty will be made depending on mitigating circumstances.  That is if he were overly influenced by his older brother, he will be spared the death penalty.  While if the Islamic radicalization that led to his actions was self directed, he can be put to death. 

So here we have a case of obvious, one could say 100%, guilt, but a real legal question about the appropriateness of the death penalty.  How would this case fit into your proposition, geo7863?

[Echnaton]

I used to support the death penalty

So did I.  Being from Texas and having an advantaged demographic background made support for it almost automatic.  I reasoned my way out of that little issue.

[ka9q]

In the US a unanimous finding by the Jury in any criminal case must be reached before a Guilty verdict.

That is correct. The twelve jurors must agree unanimously either way. If they can't, they get a talking-to by the judge. If they still can't agree, a mistrial is declared and the prosecutor has to decide whether to try the defendant all over again.

If the jury decides on guilty, it must be "beyond a reasonable doubt". And yes, every single death row inmate who was later exonerated (usually by DNA evidence) was originally convicted by twelve people unanimously agreeing that the evidence proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What does this tell you about that expression and the reliability of the process?

But there's an even bigger outrage regarding the death penalty as it is practiced in the US. Every prospective juror in a death penalty case is quizzed about his views, and those who express opposition to the death penalty on principle are automatically excluded. So much for the fundamental principle of Anglo-American law that a jury should consist of a representative cross-section of the community, complete with a representative cross-section of political and personal views. I can't think of a worse way to bias a jury, yet here it's perfectly legal. In fact, it's required.

[Luke Pemberton]

The executions have been carried out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32501712

[Echnaton]

Shame.

[smartcooky]

I abhor the death penalty. Its finality combined with the fallibility of the legal system (especially in the US) means that innocent people have certainly been executed in the past, and will be executed in the future. On that alone (quite aside form the moral considerations) I regard it as barbaric, and as having no place in a civilized world.

That said, anyone who would try to smuggle drugs into, through or out of Indonesia, knowing that they will likely get the death penalty if caught, has to be nine parts stupid.