Capital Punishment

[motorbiking]

You have clearly learned something today from this thread in that you said "Theft of cars is not an aggravated offence" you have been shown to be incorrect and now you realise this. That is a positive outcome. You can always learn something from my intellectual threads. Well done you.

Not to mention that sec 12A of the Theft Act 1968 describes the offence of Aggravated vehicle-taking.

Theft Act 1968

An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to theft and similar or associated offences, and in connection therewith to make provision as to criminal proceedings by one party to a marriage against the other, and to make certain amendments extending beyond England and Wales in the Post...

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[blup]

I have always said that I have something for everyone, it is one of my traits that you can learn something new and better yourself through my wisdom, not something I bragg about but just a fact. Anyone who leaves me a thanks for this is most welcome to do so and is supporting my great work. Anyways this thread is not about me although that would make a great thread, this is about should we bring back good old fashioned disciplin which appears to have sliped in this country.

You remind me of the old Woodi Allen joke:”I’m a modest guy, but then I’ve got a lot to be modest about”.
Not to be confused with other joke that he was relieved not to be incriminated in the Epsteen files and accused of cheating on his daughter.

 

[SPLINE]

So you support state murder and the return to the old school days of random beatings..

Falsifying quotes.

 

[JohnD]

We have moved on with both policing and technology since the yorkshire ripper days. Those days were all records on A to Z cards and communication was via telephones and tape recordings.

We have not been breeding a new type of human, free of dishonesty, prejudice, and hate.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Secondly, I feel we need to be very careful when saying 100% guilty. There are folk who came under this category who were subsequently found to be innocent (or at the very least not enough evidence against them) and then released.

100% guilty, means there can be absolutely no doubt at all, such as the Rigby murder. Only if there can be no doubt at all, 100%, then death should be the outcome. Whilst we might get some level of satisfaction from keeping them alive and in misery, how many are kept in misery? Rather they live a spartan, but reasonably comfortable life, with nowt much to worry about, and at great expense to the country -WHY?

Better all round, is to save money, and end their lives.

 

[Highway Man]

We have not been breeding a new type of human, free of dishonesty, prejudice, and hate.

True but as I have said it wouldn't go on just relying on a police verdict, it would have to be backed up by evidence both forensic and a confession although the confession may not be needed to administer the death penalty.

 

[MNW67]

True but as I have said it wouldn't go on just relying on a police verdict, it would have to be backed up by evidence both forensic and a confession although the confession may not be needed to administer the death penalty.

Who would decide. Judge, Jury or Home Secretary. Are you considering a two stage jury verdict which includes a higher standard of proof for the death penalty.

 

[Highway Man]

Who would decide. Judge, Jury or Home Secretary. Are you considering a two stage jury verdict which includes a higher standard of proof for the death penalty.

My approval of this is for crimes where the guilty are already known guilty before any trial, such as the Ian Huntley case and terrorists who are caught red handed,, Lee digby killer etc who didnt need a trial to prove they were guilty. The death penalty issued where there is no doubt about their guilt and is 100% proven without a shadow of doubt. No innocent person could be convicted.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Just give your opinion and leave it at that.

I only see that it has posted 'something', as it is blocked here. Blocked, because I don't wish to waste my time reading the incessant drivel from this poster, who has a desperate need to post and so desperately craves attention. If everyone simply blocked, the poster would have none of the attention, it so craves, and stop bothering the forum with its posts.

 

[ellal]

What random beatings.? Never mentioned random beatings

That's what happens in schools and homes when you allow corporal punishment...

But hey, you said you were in favour...

And you can't discriminate when being in favour of the principle

 

[noseall]

What random beatings.? Never mentioned random beatings

Like smashing a pop singer in the face with a rifle butt because you disgree with them - kind of beatings....

"....A disgusting cretin that thinks he is clever. I would happily smash him in his face with a rifle butt.....

Some intellect.

 

[Highway Man]

Like smashing a pop singer in the face with a rifle butt because you disgree with them - kind of beatings....

"....A disgusting cretin that thinks he is clever. I would happily smash him in his face with a rifle butt.....

Some intellect.

Anyhing to say on this topic or is that it?

 

[MNW67]

My approval of this is for crimes where the guilty are already known guilty before any trial, such as the Ian Huntley case and terrorists who are caught red handed,, Lee digby killer etc who didnt need a trial to prove they were guilty. The death penalty issued where there is no doubt about their guilt and is 100% proven without a shadow of doubt. No innocent person could be convicted.

I am interested in the nitty gritty of how your plan would work in practice. At some point somebody has to decide which cases would get the death penalty. I don't think there is another system anywhere in the world which decides to pass the death penalty based on a 100% degree of guilt. Juries decide guilt on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Your plan would equate to 'beyond all doubt'. But there might be other ways to implement it. Not sure I can think of a system off the top of my head.

 

[motorbiking]

Anyhing to say on this topic or is that it?

oh dear, is he looking for something to say again. bless

 

[Highway Man]

I am interested in the nitty gritty of how your plan would work in practice. At some point somebody has to decide which cases would get the death penalty. I don't think there is another system anywhere in the world which decides to pass the death penalty based on a 100% degree of guilt. Juries decide guilt on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Your plan would equate to 'beyond all doubt'. But there might be other ways to implement it. Not sure I can think of a system off the top of my head.

Well it is an area I would like to explore and if there is such a system in place anywhere else in the world, My approval is for those who are convicted of serious cries that are guilty, I understand they still need a trial but instead of giving a life sentence rather just give them the deth penalty.