The chilling words of a murderer?

[Woodsey]

Have no problem with death sentence in some cases where there is clearly no doubt they did it and admitted it etc. Anders Brevik or whatever his name is springs to mind as an example.

How does a system ensure that there's 'no doubt'? 

Difficult one, but for sure there are some cases where the person was caught red handed admitted it etc and there really is no doubt. The above example is one and there are others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/themes/crime_and_punishment/miscarriages_of_justice/default.stm

A lot of those 'admitted' their guilt.

They are fking stupid then lol

[TightEnd]

Have no problem with death sentence in some cases where there is clearly no doubt they did it and admitted it etc. Anders Brevik or whatever his name is springs to mind as an example.

How does a system ensure that there's 'no doubt'? 

Difficult one, but for sure there are some cases where the person was caught red handed admitted it etc and there really is no doubt. The above example is one and there are others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/themes/crime_and_punishment/miscarriages_of_justice/default.stm

A lot of those 'admitted' their guilt.

They are fking stupid then lol

far too simplistic. Mental problems, police coercion, defending others involved......lots of reasons why confessions can be unsafe

[Woodsey]

Have no problem with death sentence in some cases where there is clearly no doubt they did it and admitted it etc. Anders Brevik or whatever his name is springs to mind as an example.

How does a system ensure that there's 'no doubt'?  

Difficult one, but for sure there are some cases where the person was caught red handed admitted it etc and there really is no doubt. The above example is one and there are others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/themes/crime_and_punishment/miscarriages_of_justice/default.stm

A lot of those 'admitted' their guilt.

They are fking stupid then lol

far too simplistic. Mental problems, police coercion, defending others involved......lots of reasons why confessions can be unsafe

There are still deffo cases where there really is no doubt, I have given one example.

[DungBeetle]

"pardon? We're hundreds of years away from that barbarism in the UK."

I don't expect many people to agree with me Tighty, but I think capital punishment is a healing process, where society bonds together under the umbrella of vengeance.  Two wrongs do make a right in my book, and society will benefit from seeing ultimate justice served.  Mercy and forgiveness are, in my book, flawed human traits.

I accept that miscarriages of justice is a problem, but in the cases of Brevik or this shooter the guilt is absolute (and I don't accept insanity as a defence.) 

[DungBeetle]

As mentioned earlier in the thread I fully expect to be thought of as a caveman in this regard.

[kinboshi]

How would you create a system that only sentenced people to death if there is absolutely no doubt?

Would the jury and judge in the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four cases not have come to the same conclusion if the penalty facing the accused was the death penalty? 

We recently had a thread on here about the flaws in the jury system.  These flaws are magnified when an innocent person has his life taken away.

[Woodsey]

How would you create a system that only sentenced people to death if there is absolutely no doubt?

Tell them to only torch people if there is no doubt obv 

I'd happily leave that one for the lawmakers to define.

[kinboshi]

How would you create a system that only sentenced people to death if there is absolutely no doubt?

Tell them to only torch people if there is no doubt obv 

I'd happily leave that one for the lawmakers to define.

There is always doubt.  If you're not actually there to witness a crime in the first person, then you have to trust eye-witnesses, physical evidence, incomplete circumstantial evidence, etc.  Some of those cases I mentioned above had police witness statements, physical evidence, 'expert' testimony, and actual confessions by the accused.  That should propel those cases to a level above 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'hardly any room for doubt at all' - but they were wrong, and innocent people were convicted.
 

[Woodsey]

How would you create a system that only sentenced people to death if there is absolutely no doubt?

Tell them to only torch people if there is no doubt obv 

I'd happily leave that one for the lawmakers to define.

There is always doubt.  If you're not actually there to witness a crime in the first person, then you have to trust eye-witnesses, physical evidence, incomplete circumstantial evidence, etc.  Some of those cases I mentioned above had police witness statements, physical evidence, 'expert' testimony, and actual confessions by the accused.  That should propel those cases to a level above 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'hardly any room for doubt at all' - but they were wrong, and innocent people were convicted.
 

Where is the doubt in the Anders Brevik case then? Sorry Dan but there are some cases where there is simply no doubt.

[DungBeetle]

The problem we have is that murder is already "beyond reasonable doubt", so there can't be another category above that for "no doubt whatsoever" as it devalues the murder conviction.

It is up to the CPS to be responsible in seeking the death penalty (hypothetically) and unfortunately we have to live with the occasional miscarriage of justice on the basis that it is for the greater good.

[kinboshi]

The problem we have is that murder is already "beyond reasonable doubt", so there can't be another category above that for "no doubt whatsoever" as it devalues the murder conviction.

It is up to the CPS to be responsible in seeking the death penalty (hypothetically) and unfortunately we have to live with the occasional miscarriage of justice on the basis that it is for the greater good.

No we don't.  That's the sole reason that any argument for the death-penalty is flawed.  The justice system killing one innocent person is too many.

[kinboshi]

How would you create a system that only sentenced people to death if there is absolutely no doubt?

Tell them to only torch people if there is no doubt obv 

I'd happily leave that one for the lawmakers to define.

There is always doubt.  If you're not actually there to witness a crime in the first person, then you have to trust eye-witnesses, physical evidence, incomplete circumstantial evidence, etc.  Some of those cases I mentioned above had police witness statements, physical evidence, 'expert' testimony, and actual confessions by the accused.  That should propel those cases to a level above 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'hardly any room for doubt at all' - but they were wrong, and innocent people were convicted.
 

Where is the doubt in the Anders Brevik case then? Sorry Dan but there are some cases where there is simply no doubt.

I'd say it's 99.9999% certain that he's guilty. But I can only go on what I've read in the media and seen on TV.  As mentioned, I'd have said that the Birmingham Six were guilty beyond any doubt as well based on what I'd read and saw about the trial.

[Woodsey]

How would you create a system that only sentenced people to death if there is absolutely no doubt?

Tell them to only torch people if there is no doubt obv  

I'd happily leave that one for the lawmakers to define.

There is always doubt.  If you're not actually there to witness a crime in the first person, then you have to trust eye-witnesses, physical evidence, incomplete circumstantial evidence, etc.  Some of those cases I mentioned above had police witness statements, physical evidence, 'expert' testimony, and actual confessions by the accused.  That should propel those cases to a level above 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'hardly any room for doubt at all' - but they were wrong, and innocent people were convicted.
 

Where is the doubt in the Anders Brevik case then? Sorry Dan but there are some cases where there is simply no doubt.

I'd say it's 99.9999% certain that he's guilty. But I can only go on what I've read in the media and seen on TV.  As mentioned, I'd have said that the Birmingham Six were guilty beyond any doubt as well based on what I'd read and saw about the trial.

You're right, I guess there is a 0.0001% chance he has an identical twin brother nobody knows about that he's covering up for.  

[kinboshi]

How would you create a system that only sentenced people to death if there is absolutely no doubt?

Tell them to only torch people if there is no doubt obv 

I'd happily leave that one for the lawmakers to define.

There is always doubt.  If you're not actually there to witness a crime in the first person, then you have to trust eye-witnesses, physical evidence, incomplete circumstantial evidence, etc.  Some of those cases I mentioned above had police witness statements, physical evidence, 'expert' testimony, and actual confessions by the accused.  That should propel those cases to a level above 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'hardly any room for doubt at all' - but they were wrong, and innocent people were convicted.
 

Where is the doubt in the Anders Brevik case then? Sorry Dan but there are some cases where there is simply no doubt.

I'd say it's 99.9999% certain that he's guilty. But I can only go on what I've read in the media and seen on TV.  As mentioned, I'd have said that the Birmingham Six were guilty beyond any doubt as well based on what I'd read and saw about the trial.

You're right, I guess there is a 0.0001% chance he has an identical twin brother nobody knows about he's covering up for. 

Could be

[DungBeetle]

The problem we have is that murder is already "beyond reasonable doubt", so there can't be another category above that for "no doubt whatsoever" as it devalues the murder conviction.

It is up to the CPS to be responsible in seeking the death penalty (hypothetically) and unfortunately we have to live with the occasional miscarriage of justice on the basis that it is for the greater good.

No we don't.  That's the sole reason that any argument for the death-penalty is flawed.  The justice system killing one innocent person is too many.

That's your opinion. If the death of one innocent is outweighed by the benfitis then it is acceptable in my opinion.