- Joined
- 7 Nov 2023
- Messages
- 17,397
- Reaction score
- 10,840
- Country

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

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

He started a post with a reasonably unbiased question, why not return the courtesy rather than start down the abuse road?
I am all for capital and corporal punishment

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

Thats 1976 for you.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.

I believe you'll find the abuse is in the statement supporting capital and corporal punishment...
I am all for capital and corporal punishment,

I'm all for punishment in general. There should be more of it, and it should be more severe. It gets things done.Not just "supporting". Enthusiastically supporting:

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.

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.

Anyhing to say on this topic or is that it?

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.

IRA apologist.

Exactly that, no long drawn out trials costing the tax payer thousands, no legal representation just a priest if they want one.So, would we have a higher burden of proof such as 'beyond all doubt' for such cases.

As stated the crime is proven without a shadow of a doubt and sentence passed by a judge

If there is no trial, who decides if they are guilty? The Home Secretary?