Capital Punishment

[MNW67]

There are on average 500'ish murder convictions in the UK each year. If you wish the death penalty for every convicted murderer then you wish that this country stands alongside some of the most primitive & some of the most corrupt society's in this world.

What you are probably feeling is that you want every murderer who offends you to be condemned to death. The type of murder that makes a good story in your MSM of choice. The type of murder that sells clicks or copy. This isn't justice & this isn't civilised, this is death by journalism.

Some on here are pushing for the death penalty without a trial when it is 'obvious' they are guilty of murder.

 

[transam]

Some on here are pushing for the death penalty without a trial when it is 'obvious' they are guilty of murder.

They can have a trial if required after all they would plead not guilty I would assume ??

Smoking gun evidence would basically mean that the verdict is done and dusted

No mitigating circumstance for-those on my list
( example)

No right of appeal

No death row

Bumped off with in weeks at worst

Simples / sorted and saves the tax payer a few Bob

Transam gives not a jot about there human rights

 

[MNW67]

They can have a trial if required after all they would plead not guilty I would assume ??

Smoking gun evidence would basically mean that the verdict is done and dusted

No mitigating circumstance for-those on my list
( example)

No right of appeal

No death row

Bumped off with in weeks at worst

Simples / sorted and saves the tax payer a few Bob

Transam gives not a jot about there human rights

It is required both by Magna Carta and by any thinking person.

And they should have the same rights of appeal as everyone else.

Because otherwise, who decides which cases get trials and appeals.

 

[Highway Man]

It is required both by Magna Carta and by any thinking person.

And they should have the same rights of appeal as everyone else.

Because otherwise, who decides which cases get trials and appeals.

Depends upon the crime and the witnesses as well as 100% evidence. No need for trials or human rights, they wont deserve such luxuries

 

[MNW67]

Depends upon the crime and the witnesses as well as 100% evidence. No need for trials or human rights, they wont deserve such luxuries

But who decides if they get a trial and/or an appeal.

Nobody has attempted to answer that yet. Maybe a public vote.

 

[Mottie]

The IRA did actually kill off duty soldiers on the UK mainland.

After the 'peace' agreement?

 

[Highway Man]

But who decides if they get a trial and/or an appeal.

Nobody has attempted to answer that yet. Maybe a public vote.

If there is doubt of their guilt then they are entitled to a trial

 

[MNW67]

If there is doubt of their guilt then they are entitled to a trial

And who decides if there is doubt.

 

[MNW67]

After the 'peace' agreement?

I get what you mean now.

 

[Highway Man]

And who decides if there is doubt.

the CPS would receive a police report exactly as they do now

 

[MNW67]

the CPS would receive a police report exactly as they do now

So, under your plan, would the head of the CPS (the Director of Public Prosecutions) make the decision as to whether there is any doubt about guilt.

 

[Highway Man]

So, under your plan, would the head of the CPS (the Director of Public Prosecution) make the decision as to whether there is any doubt about guilt.

Yes from the police report for the arrest and through interviews. if the CPS can see that this is not a 100% guilt charge then it goes to trial, no death sentence can be issued but any custodial sentence would be hard labour, 12 hrs minimum work per day.

 

[MNW67]

Yes from the police report for the arrest and through interviews. if the CPS can see that this is not a 100% guilt charge then it goes to trial, no death sentence can be issued but any custodial sentence would be hard labour, 12 hrs minimum work per day.

I agree some trials can seem pointless. But for the public to maintain faith in the system, we need the transparency that trials afford.

I have cut right back on AIs. But in this case, I thought it would be useful to use it to highlight some of the arguments.

I asked the question 'would a system where the DPP decides that certain accused won't get a trial if he is certain they are guilty be fair'

Google AI:

No, that would not be considered a fair system under modern legal standards. Here is why:

1. The Presumption of Innocence
The cornerstone of most legal systems is that a person is "innocent until proven guilty." If a prosecutor (like the DPP) can decide guilt privately without a trial, the accused is essentially "guilty until proven innocent"— or worse, guilty without any chance to prove innocence.

2. Separation of Powers
A fair justice system relies on a "checks and balances" approach:

• The Police/DPP: Investigate and prosecute (The Accuser).
• The Jury/Judge: Listen to evidence and decide the truth (The Fact-Finder).
  By letting the DPP decide guilt, you combine the accuser and the judge into one person. This removes the neutral oversight that prevents government overreach.

3. The Lack of "Due Process"
A trial is not just a formality; it is a process designed to find the truth through:

• Cross-examination: Testing if witnesses are lying or mistaken.
• Evidence rules: Ensuring only reliable information is used.
• Defence: Allowing the accused to tell their side.
  Even if a prosecutor is "certain," they can be wrong. Without a trial, there is no way to expose flaws in the investigation or the evidence.

4. Public Confidence
For a legal system to work, the public must believe it is transparent and consistent. A system where people disappear into prison based on the private "certainty" of one official would likely be viewed as a dictatorship rather than a rule-of-law society.

Summary: While it might seem efficient for "obvious" cases, such a system removes the safeguards that protect the innocent from human error, bias, or corruption.

 

[Highway Man]

I agree some trials can seem pointless. But for the public to maintain faith in the system, we need the transparency that trials afford.

I have cut right back on AIs. But in this case, I thought it would be useful to use it to highlight some of the arguments.

I asked the question 'would a system where the DPP decides that certain accused won't get a trial if he is certain they are guilty be fair'

Google AI:

No, that would not be considered a fair system under modern legal standards. Here is why:

1. The Presumption of Innocence
The cornerstone of most legal systems is that a person is "innocent until proven guilty." If a prosecutor (like the DPP) can decide guilt privately without a trial, the accused is essentially "guilty until proven innocent"— or worse, guilty without any chance to prove innocence.

2. Separation of Powers
A fair justice system relies on a "checks and balances" approach:

• The Police/DPP: Investigate and prosecute (The Accuser).
• The Jury/Judge: Listen to evidence and decide the truth (The Fact-Finder).
  By letting the DPP decide guilt, you combine the accuser and the judge into one person. This removes the neutral oversight that prevents government overreach.

3. The Lack of "Due Process"
A trial is not just a formality; it is a process designed to find the truth through:

• Cross-examination: Testing if witnesses are lying or mistaken.
• Evidence rules: Ensuring only reliable information is used.
• Defence: Allowing the accused to tell their side.
  Even if a prosecutor is "certain," they can be wrong. Without a trial, there is no way to expose flaws in the investigation or the evidence.

4. Public Confidence
For a legal system to work, the public must believe it is transparent and consistent. A system where people disappear into prison based on the private "certainty" of one official would likely be viewed as a dictatorship rather than a rule-of-law society.

Summary: While it might seem efficient for "obvious" cases, such a system removes the safeguards that protect the innocent from human error, bias, or corruption.

As stated my proposal is for serious crimes where there is no shadow of doubt and 100% foolproof. No wasting months of awaiting costly trials, no clever solicitors trying to twist a jury into believing they was acting in some sort of mental state.

 

[transam]

It is required both by Magna Carta and by any thinking person.

And they should have the same rights of appeal as everyone else.

Because otherwise, who decides which cases get trials and appeals.

Smoking gun evidence no appeal no mitigating circumstance no alleged mental health excuses
Or how they were abused in there child hood or not breast fed or any other excuses

Heinous cruel crimes guilty as charged

Bump em off and good riddance to bad rubbish

Simples