Capital Punishment

So technology has changed to prove beyond a shadow of doubt someone is guilty. CCTV footage, gps on cars, mobile phones etc etc

In 1976 they thought there was no shadow of a doubt of guilt, and more than one judge lamented the fact that he couldn't hang the people who were beyond a shadow of doubt guilty.
 
I see you are out just being irritating and destroying a perfectly reasonable thread where sensible posters can give their opinions to this topic.

He's simply presenting a logical analysis of what you and others who think like you have said, and expressing your desires in equivalent but different words (e.g. 'corporal punishment' Ξ 'beating').

I accept that you may find that irritating.
 
TBH I'm not sure what Highway Man really does believe:

Capital Punishment​

Should we now bring it back? No government seems to want to but what about for people who beyond a shadow of a doubt are guilty of severe crimes, such as Murder, Violent Rape, child abduction and paedophile for those who would receive life sentences, Death sentence only handed out to those who are 100% guilty. Nobody mourned over Huntley when another inmate murdered him, so why not sentence him to death in the first place.
1773359822261.png
 
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.

And that willy-waving contributes to the debate how, exactly?
 
If they didn't get the guilty score below say 90%, their head would be zapped with a gazilon volts...maybe someone could turn that idea in to a film.

Maybe someone could explain to you that that means you'd be happy with about 1 in 10 executions being wrong.
 
So, would we have a higher burden of proof such as 'beyond all doubt' for such cases.
Exactly that, no long drawn out trials costing the tax payer thousands, no legal representation just a priest if they want one.

So a higher burden of proof, but no trial, no examination of this "proof" and no opportunity for the accused to challenge the veracity of the "proof".

No.
 
As stated the crime is proven without a shadow of a doubt and sentence passed by a judge

Paul Hill
Gerry Conlon
Patrick Armstrong
Carole Richardson
Anne Maguire
Patrick Maguire Sr.
Patrick Maguire Jr.
Vincent Maguire
Sean Smyth
Patrick O'Neill
Patrick "Giuseppe" Conlon
Hugh Callaghan
Patrick Hill
Gerard Hunter
Richard McIlkenny
William Power
John Walker

 
Back
Top