You can cure more than bacon by hanging it fom a string

[dextrous]

Saw this quote regarding some bloke who has killed a woman and child (motives unknown). So, as I can't remember this being discussed for a while, whaddya think?

 

[conny]

When there is absolutely no doubt, not just admission, but physical/scientific proof then yes.

 

[securespark]

You have to be careful. Look back at famous cases where people have been wrongly imprisoned. Like Colin Stagg for Rachel Nickell's murder, for example. If he had been done away with, what then?

I see what you're saying about incontrovertible evidence ( I had an incontrovertible car once), but proving beyond all reasonable doubt is very difficult.

 

[dextrous]

If I took a camera shot of you committing a crime, and there was DNA evidence supporting the fact that it was you there at that exact moment in time, would that be sufficient proof?

The world is grossly overpopulated, and although one could forge the argument that murderers are doing us a "favour" by culling, this culling is not being done through a commonly agreed selection process.

So the morality of this cull isn't as a deterrent, nor retribution, but as an elimination of people's who demonstrate unacceptable behaviour patterns - rape, murder, paedophilia, owning dangerous dogs being included within this list.

 

[Thermo]

what if it was photoshopped badly (or vey well for that matter)?

 

[dextrous]

It's not the only evidence. But a valid point.. however, the question is about "incontrovertible" evidence and so is about the principle more than the reality.

 

[big-all]

jurys will be reluctant [more proof needed]before they say guilty if the death sentance is the likley outcome

 

[conny]

jurys will be reluctant [more proof needed]before they say guilty if the death sentance is the likley outcome

But if the burden of proof is incontravertible then they should have no hesitation in finding the defendant guilty.
Obviously during the jury selection process one of the questions would have to be along the lines of;

"Are you capable of passing a guilty verdict, should the case be proven, which may result in the sentence of death being pronounced?"

Anyone not able to say yes would then have to be excluded from that particular case.

 

[dextrous]

jurys will be reluctant [more proof needed]before they say guilty if the death sentance is the likley outcome

An interesting point. This could be resolved in two ways that spring to mind (off the top of my head, so may not hold too much water):

1/. A jury could be provided with an opportunity to insist on leniency, which would have to be adhered to by the sentencing judge.

2/. The judge could offer the opportunity for lenience or otherwise to be voted on after the verdict has been passed - the prisoner's previous record could be outlined prior to this vote.

 

[conny]

The second part of your second statement is a must.

Too many times in the past leniency has been granted only for it to emerge later that the culprit is an out and out recidivist.

 

[dextrous]

Bottom line is that it is a person's individual choice whether or not to commit a crime of the order that we are referring to.

 

[Infidel]

Would this also apply to drivers, I can see no reason why not.
Your tired over your allowance got a dodgy tacko, or one to many down the boozer and you wipe out a car. Death sentence? but you didn't do it with "malice aforethought" mitigating circumstance still makes you a killer.

 

[dextrous]

Mitigating circumstances? OK, give me the mitigating circumstances for maybe getting hold of an 8 year old girl (or boy), threatening their life before shoving your c**k up their orifaces until you ejaculate. Afterwards, strangling the aforementioned child util (s)he is dead. Whaddya reckon - a few years inside, maybe let out for good behaviour, relocated to pastures anew, only to do it again.

Oh, let's not forget it was only your sperm and DNA found inside the corpse, and you were seen quite clearly bundling the child into the back of a van by 15 bystanders and CCTV cameras. And it's the second time you've done it, but clever lawyery got you off the last couple of times (the arresting officer made a faux pas since he was a depressed OCD)

 

[Infidel]

So thats a No then, you kill someone for driving like a dick and you don't hang them, hows that work then?
It will end up with the inevitable answer Life should mean Life or should it?

 

[dextrous]

So thats a No then, you kill someone for driving like a dick and you don't hang them, hows that work then?
It will end up with the inevitable answer Life should mean Life or should it?

I never said no, to be fair. However, there is a huge difference between an action which has an unfortunate accident that leads to death, and another that is designed from the outset to be for personal, sexual, financial or other gain from which death follows.