'Justice' system makes me sad and mad!!

Lambyr

supersaver2 wrote: »

Innocent people will die in prison, that’s a given. Therefore the people who don’t believe in the death penalty in case an innocent is killed surely shouldn’t agree with prison ‘just in case’. What then do we do with criminals?

It makes sense to remove from wider society, punish through loss of liberty and attempt, where possible, to reform criminals for the wellbeing and safety of the public. It is unfortunate that it is necessary to do this but many things are an unfortunate necessity for the greater good.

Execution, however, is a choice. It is not needed as the option of imprisonment is available. It is a definite and final end to a process organised and administered by fallible humans. Studies continue to show it fails as a deterrent. In the US, studies have also shown the death penalty is disproportiantely applied to ethnic minorities and impoverished people.

And one could reasonably argue that choosing to punish somebody for killing by calling upon the state to kill them is a bit odd.

Nick_C

simonineaston wrote: »

. .. her atop the Old Bailey has a blindfold wrapped around her peepers.

OT, but as a matter of fact, the statue of Justice at the Old Bailey does not wear a blindfold.

seashore22

supersaver2 wrote: »

I’m not entirely sure where I stand on the death penalty but as some point out they see it as revenge, what about life in prison without parole, is that also revenge? A person could easily be sent to prison and be innocent, should we therefore not send anybody to prison just in case?

That is totally different.

There needs to be a criminal justice system and the public needs protecting from people who will do them harm. Some offenders do need to go to prison for the rest of their lives because they will always be a danger. There is always the opportunity to release them if they are found to be innocent at a later date and it has happened before and will again.

However if you execute someone there is no chance of bringing them back. No chance of giving them their life back. That has happened too and I think it's a terrible prospect.

janninew

It’s an interesting point supersaver2 makes. If you don’t believe in the death penalty just in case an innocent is killed how can you agree with prison when an innocent could be locked away for years? Yes a life sentence isn’t as final as death but must be unbearable for the innocent person locked up for years. Why is the risk acceptable for one yet not the other? Being in prison for the rest of my natural days away from my family when I was innocent is unthinkable.

Lambyr

janninew wrote: »

It’s an interesting point supersaver2 makes. If you don’t believe in the death penalty just in case an innocent is killed how can you agree with prison when an innocent could be locked away for years? Yes a life sentence isn’t as final as death but must be unbearable for the innocent person locked up for years. Why is the risk acceptable for one yet not the other? Being in prison for the rest of my natural days away from my family when I was innocent is unthinkable.

I imagine it would be unbearable, which is why it is very important that we uphold prisoner's rights to fair and humane treatment, provide adequate support for mental health issues and also ensure that should new evidence be made available, access to legal counsel, opportunities for retrial and, if acquitted, sufficient redress for victims of miscarriages of justice be made available.

It is a bit harder to do that when we've hanged someone or injected them with a lethal cocktail of drugs.

onomatopoeia99

janninew wrote: »

It’s an interesting point supersaver2 makes. If you don’t believe in the death penalty just in case an innocent is killed how can you agree with prison when an innocent could be locked away for years? Yes a life sentence isn’t as final as death but must be unbearable for the innocent person locked up for years. Why is the risk acceptable for one yet not the other? Being in prison for the rest of my natural days away from my family when I was innocent is unthinkable.

Unthinkable, but still better than being dead.

If you're alive, at least restitution for lost earnings and compensation can be made when the miscarriage of justice is overturned, though of course there will be a contingent, usually the same ones calling for the death penalty and likening prisons to holiday camps, that will shout about how terrible it is that any kind of financial compensation is paid to those wrongly imprisoned.

Robisere

I don't believe in capital punishment, but I do firmly believe in people like Hindley and Brady being locked up forever. Anyone who thinks that this is not punishment enough, only has to look at that vile pair, and others. When they are deprived of their liberty, and that until death, there should be no possibility of release if they are unmistakably guilty of the most terrible crimes. Brady of course, went mad inside. This happens because there is the inescapable knowledge that they will never be anywhere but behind the same walls, doing the same dreary things, having a complete non-life until the day they die. That is suffering and they deserve it. There should be no release for that category of criminal, not even if they develop a terminal disease. And they should be aware that the steady drip-drip of years will never end until they do, as they age and become steadily unhealthier in those conditions.

MothballsWallet

FWIW, the UK government (as well as many others) signed a UN treaty agreeing to get rid of the death penalty from our statute book.

We complied, many of the other signatories still have not.

Scorpio33

Just to add to this debate:

1. Often having a death penalty increases the level of crimes committed. This is due to the criminal committing a crime and thinking "Well if I get caught I am going to get the death sentence, so I may as well do my worst." You only have to look at the US and see that the death sentence is not a deterrent at all.

2. If someone is locked up as an innocent, it is entirely possible that new technology can uncover new truths which could prove their innocence. At least if they are in jail, they would then have a chance of being proved innocent.

The other thing is that it is not just the criminal or victim you need to think about here. It is the family and friends of such people - imagine if your brother was locked up for something and brandished a criminal when he was innocent? Your life would also be adversely affected, so justice for innocent people needs to be done where possible.

lika_86

Interesting that the OP thought it was "pretty clear" that the bloke had abused his child when at least one expert suggests it's not clear that that was the case.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-42252052

Moral of the story? Perhaps don't judge something unless you've heard both sides and all the evidence, which is what the inquest is doing.