Capital punishment Watch

TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#201
Report 3 years ago
#201
(Original post by abruiseonthesky)
Ex-prosecutor.

See this is why we're never really going to agree, because we disagree on the very fundamentals
She must have taken defence cases in her time where she was assured of the client's guilt but still managed to get him/her off.
0
reply
abruiseonthesky
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#202
Report 3 years ago
#202
(Original post by TheArtofProtest)
She must have taken defence cases in her time where she was assured of the client's guilt but still managed to get him/her off.
Erm, no, because she was a prosecutor? As in for the CPS?
0
reply
TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#203
Report 3 years ago
#203
(Original post by abruiseonthesky)
Erm, no, because she was a prosecutor? As in for the CPS?
It's hard to imagine she was solely CPS, for the entirety of her career.

Many barristers that I know of, who are heavily involved in the prosecuting side, have on occasion, taken on the odd defence case now and then but especially when they were younger because that is primarily where the money is and where they "make their bones".

The CPS, as an institution, heavily frowns upon "their prosecutors" (and some may be "penalised" by loss of a potential case) playing for the defence side but nearly everyone does it on occasion.


That is why I am expressing surprise that your mother had not worked a brief as defence counsel, given the fact that she was a barrister and prosecutions, on average, are not as lucrative when compared to defence work.
0
reply
ExclusiveGlue
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#204
Report 3 years ago
#204
No, it's 2015, not 1955 ffs! :doh:
1
reply
abruiseonthesky
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#205
Report 3 years ago
#205
(Original post by TheArtofProtest)
It's hard to imagine she was solely CPS, for the entirety of her career.

Many barristers that I know of, who are heavily involved in the prosecuting side, have on occasion, taken on the odd defence case now and then but especially when they were younger because that is primarily where the money is and where they "make their bones".

The CPS, as an institution, heavily frowns upon "their prosecutors" (and some may be "penalised" by loss of a potential case) playing for the defence side but nearly everyone does it on occasion.


That is why I am expressing surprise that your mother had not worked a brief as defence counsel, given the fact that she was a barrister and prosecutions, on average, are not as lucrative when compared to defence work.
She was a nurse before changing career so she didn't go straight in as an undergrad. She didn't get a law degree until after she'd had me and my brother, and her training contract was done in a company outside of criminal law. After the CPS she worked in care home law before going into her current job as a coroner, so she's never done defence.
0
reply
TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#206
Report 3 years ago
#206
(Original post by abruiseonthesky)
She was a nurse before changing career so she didn't go straight in as an undergrad. She didn't get a law degree until after she'd had me and my brother, and her training contract was done in a company outside of criminal law. After the CPS she worked in care home law before going into her current job as a coroner, so she's never done defence.
The information that you have provided increasingly points towards that of your mother qualifying as solicitor, as opposed to a barrister who would normally be able the person responsible for prosecuting cases.

Solicitors can have limited rights of audience to address the court, as solicitor-advocates, but I've never come across a case yet where such people have acted as prosecutors.

As such, I am highly skeptical about your claims, especially in regards to the prosecution. I have no problem with your assertion that your mother worked for the CPS, but perhaps just not prosecuting cases in court.

I think I'll leave it there.
0
reply
abruiseonthesky
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#207
Report 3 years ago
#207
(Original post by TheArtofProtest)
The information that you have provided increasingly points towards that of your mother qualifying as solicitor, as opposed to a barrister who would normally be able the person responsible for prosecuting cases.

Solicitors can have limited rights of audience to address the court, as solicitor-advocates, but I've never come across a case yet where such people have acted as prosecutors.

As such, I am highly skeptical about your claims, especially in regards to the prosecution. I have no problem with your assertion that your mother worked for the CPS, but perhaps just not prosecuting cases in court.

I think I'll leave it there.
'Prosecutors are responsible for reviewing and, where appropriate, prosecuting criminal cases following investigation by the police. They also advise the police on matters relating to criminal cases.'
That was taken from the CPS website (emphasis my own), which goes on to say you can be a solicitor or a barrister to become a CPS prosecutor which is a different thing to either.
1. Stop being a condescending **** to me about my own mother's career.
2. Get your facts right before you start taking on people about their own family members' careers.

I'm not wasting anymore time on your bs, go and patronise someone else.
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#208
Report 3 years ago
#208
(Original post by TheArtofProtest)
Our justice system is not intended to deliver the right verdict to the defendant but rather, tests the experience of barristers to twist the evidence in a manner which would either condemn or exonerate the defendant.Often, the correct verdict and correct offender tally but there have been many instances where they have not.


If we were to evolve our justice system into one that establishes facts, then I envision the costs would be lower, less appeals, and a more fairer system overall.

Our negligence in not evolving our justice system to deliver what the system was intended for, should not be an argument against capital punishment.
Indeed, if the justice system were more effective the death penalty might be cheaper.
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#209
Report 3 years ago
#209
(Original post by DiceTheSlice)
1) Justice isn't served when serial rapists and their coterie are roaming around in a facility and beggars and homeless peeps are struggling to make ends meet. I think you need to place justice above morals.
What do you mean when you say talk about justice if not morals? The right thing to do is what is moral, by definition.


I'm interested tbh thanks
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb....aspx?id=43994
ALTHOUGH IT MAY COST LESS TO EXECUTE A PARTICULAR OFFENDER THAN TO MAINTAIN THE OFFENDER IN PRISON FOR LIFE, IT COSTS FAR MORE TO FINANCE A SYSTEM IN WHICH THE DECISION IS MADE TO EXECUTE SOME PEOPLE, ALL OF WHOM ARE PROCESSED THROUGH THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, AND SOME OF WHOM MUST STILL BE MAINTAINED FOR LIFE.
1
reply
Fugey123
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#210
Report 3 years ago
#210
Yes, 100% for capital punishment. There would need to be sufficient evidence for the punishment to go ahead. But yes, our prisons are overcrowded with murderers and scum who just live royally inside prisons these days, they get fed 3 times a day, have a roof over their head, have all their hobbies in prison. It's a waste of the tax payers money keeping them in prison for life.
0
reply
TaintedLight
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#211
Report 3 years ago
#211
(Original post by abruiseonthesky)
- Justice is not killing another person.
- India's justice system is far from perfect, and completely incomparable to somewhere like the UK.
1) You are not addressing my point. You should answer with a "Yes" or "no"

Is it "justice" if a rapist is doing a life sentence with having nothing to worry about (like the food or bed) when a beggar is probably facing the complete opposite? Forget if someone needs to die or not.

2) Point taken... But if this were to happen in the UK, I would still be amazed.

(Original post by Implication)
What do you mean when you say talk about justice if not morals? The right thing to do is what is moral, by definition.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penaltyhttps://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb....aspx?id=43994
Thanks for this link.

I think the challenge here is to implement a system where capital punishment-cases have a shorter time span and related bureaucratic formalities. Example; for that Charleston shooter, I don't think there is any need for appeals in light of the evidence available.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#212
Report 3 years ago
#212
(Original post by Lord_hanson)
IF we went with their expensive methods then it would be more expensive but do you honestly think that the cost to incarcerate someone for 50+ years is lower than a length of rope or a bullet?
In all likelihood we would use their system, our legal systems are quite similar. It's not even about the actual method of execution, in the US a trial where the death penalty is sought ends up being around 8 times for costly than one where it isn't.

(Original post by DiceTheSlice)
1) Justice isn't served when serial rapists and their coterie are roaming around in a facility and beggars and homeless peeps are struggling to make ends meet. I think you need to place justice above morals.
Who are you to decide what justice is? Killing someone for raping another in my view isn't justice. A powerful state executing a poor, disenfranchised, lowly criminal isn't justice in my opinion.


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
abruiseonthesky
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#213
Report 3 years ago
#213
(Original post by DiceTheSlice)
1) You are not addressing my point. You should answer with a "Yes" or "no"

Is it "justice" if a rapist is doing a life sentence with having nothing to worry about (like the food or bed) when a beggar is probably facing the complete opposite? Forget if someone needs to die or not.
That would make it totally irrelevant because I'm talking about justice within the context of this discussion.
0
reply
username1230881
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#214
Report 3 years ago
#214
Nope, for several reasons.

Firstly - if even one person, ever, is wrongly convicted of a crime, and therefore is killed by the state, that's too many. Even admissions of guilt aren't necessarily enough to prove that a crime definitely happened (as statements could be made under duress). So punishments should never be permanent, and the death penalty is obviously the most permanent punishment you can give.

Secondly - it has not proven to be an effective deterrent, and I'm in favour of rehabilitation, personally. If the threat of death put 99% of potential criminals off, then I'd certainly consider it... but look at states and countries with the death penalty. Their crimes rates aren't particularly low. It's much better to help criminals that may be released to become functioning members of society, and even those that will never be released should have a chance at reforming themselves.

Thirdly - it's expensive. Yes, it isn't cheap to house a prisoner for the rest of their life, but the death penalty isn't exactly instant from conviction. Even if appeals (which are pretty much guaranteed) are minimal, the convict will still be waiting a long time, so the cost difference is minimal, if present at all.

Fourthly - the state should never kill. I'm not a pro-small government person, but life is a fundamental human right. Regardless of what someone has done, that should always remain. Additionally, the 'slippery slope' argument may seem over the top, but it's a valid point; there wouldn't be much stopping an over-powerful government from influencing the courts and having their political enemies sentenced to death.

Some may think that I'm being too lenient on criminals. I'm not. Murderers, rapists and terrorists are all horrible people, and I think the prison system should possibly be reformed to some extent; killers and paedophiles can be released within a few years currently, while those convicted of minor crimes (who would be better suited with a more minor punishment) can be locked away for a long time. But I'm primarily against the death penalty because life is precious and death couldn't be any more permanent; give me 100% accuracy in convictions and I'll consider capital punishment. But one innocent life gone is far too many.
1
reply
TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#215
Report 3 years ago
#215
(Original post by DiceTheSlice)
1) You are not addressing my point. You should answer with a "Yes" or "no"

Is it "justice" if a rapist is doing a life sentence with having nothing to worry about (like the food or bed) when a beggar is probably facing the complete opposite? Forget if someone needs to die or not.


I wouldn't categorize the loss of liberty as a decision that someone takes lightly and in actual fact, homeless people, who are most in need of food, accommodation and clothes, rarely would give their liberty up to spend their days and nights in prison.

Yes, homeless people do have it significantly harder in terms of material needs but it pales in comparison to the deprivation of liberty.

I think the challenge here is to implement a system where capital punishment-cases have a shorter time span and related bureaucratic formalities. Example; for that Charleston shooter, I don't think there is any need for appeals in light of the evidence available.
I would fundamentally disagree with this as no matter how horrendous a crime perpetrated is, due process has to be followed and that inevitably means allowing appeals (as appeals, in most of the cases are not primarily to do with evidence, but procedural transgressions).
0
reply
TheArtofProtest
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#216
Report 3 years ago
#216
(Original post by doctorwhofan98)
Nope, for several reasons.

Firstly - if even one person, ever, is wrongly convicted of a crime, and therefore is killed by the state, that's too many. Even admissions of guilt aren't necessarily enough to prove that a crime definitely happened (as statements could be made under duress). So punishments should never be permanent, and the death penalty is obviously the most permanent punishment you can give.
Disavowing the need to implement some form of capital punishment on the basis that "a mistake may be made" is not a good enough argument against the death penalty and it only seeks to detract from the fact that miscarriages of justice will occur whether there the death penalty is in force or not.

Rather, one should seek to reform the system so that miscarriages of justice do not crop up as opposed to objecting against a certain form of punishment.

Secondly - it has not proven to be an effective deterrent, and I'm in favour of rehabilitation, personally. If the threat of death put 99% of potential criminals off, then I'd certainly consider it... but look at states and countries with the death penalty. Their crimes rates aren't particularly low. It's much better to help criminals that may be released to become functioning members of society, and even those that will never be released should have a chance at reforming themselves.
With all due respect to those countries, hardly any of them have rehabilitative processes twinned with retribution. Most of them seem to be either so the comparison is not valid.

If the death penalty was still in existence today and death penalty was sought by the state, then I would allow the family of the murdered victim to decide whether or not they concur with such a decision.

Thirdly - it's expensive. Yes, it isn't cheap to house a prisoner for the rest of their life, but the death penalty isn't exactly instant from conviction. Even if appeals (which are pretty much guaranteed) are minimal, the convict will still be waiting a long time, so the cost difference is minimal, if present at all.
The issue with an adversarial system, like that of which the UK and America practice, is that the court is not interested in facts (i.e: who actually committed the crime). There is an inherent assumption that the defendant, who has been charged and is undergoing prosecution is the correct offender.

Where the court would be free to establish facts and from there, assign responsibility and determine guilt, one could conceivably only bring about an appeal on a procedural matter (i.e: evidence rules not followed etc etc), thus limiting the amount of appeals from murder trials.

Fourthly - the state should never kill. I'm not a pro-small government person, but life is a fundamental human right. Regardless of what someone has done, that should always remain. Additionally, the 'slippery slope' argument may seem over the top, but it's a valid point; there wouldn't be much stopping an over-powerful government from influencing the courts and having their political enemies sentenced to death.
I would hardly be in the minority for thinking that political deviances would require execution.

Some may think that I'm being too lenient on criminals. I'm not. Murderers, rapists and terrorists are all horrible people, and I think the prison system should possibly be reformed to some extent; killers and paedophiles can be released within a few years currently, while those convicted of minor crimes (who would be better suited with a more minor punishment) can be locked away for a long time. But I'm primarily against the death penalty because life is precious and death couldn't be any more permanent; give me 100% accuracy in convictions and I'll consider capital punishment. But one innocent life gone is far too many.
Whilst I acknowledge that you have presented arguments against what you believe is capital punishment, they are really against the present form of how the justice system is currently operating.
0
reply
jessicasulty
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#217
Report 3 years ago
#217
I don't know if I support it, but I think a lot of completely out of control prisoners would rather die than be locked up basically doing nothing all day. At the same time tax payers money could be wasted on just keeping the criminal alive, it would be cheaper to kill them.
0
reply
Lord_hanson
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#218
Report 3 years ago
#218
(Original post by Implication)
But the costs are much greater in cases were execution is on the cards. I'll post some links/sources later if you like, but don't just take my word for it - go and google the cost of the death penalty
I am sure that the electric chair or the lethal injection are very expensive. I am also sure that a firing squad or a hanging would also be cheap. Just like locking someone up you can go the expensive route or the cheap route. I personally think that most criminals should be locked up but sometimes there is the extreme case where an execution would be more suitable.
0
reply
Implication
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#219
Report 3 years ago
#219
(Original post by Lord_hanson)
I am sure that the electric chair or the lethal injection are very expensive. I am also sure that a firing squad or a hanging would also be cheap. Just like locking someone up you can go the expensive route or the cheap route. I personally think that most criminals should be locked up but sometimes there is the extreme case where an execution would be more suitable.
It's not the killing itself that costs; it's the existence of a system that permits killing.

(Original post by Implication)
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb....aspx?id=43994

ALTHOUGH IT MAY COST LESS TO EXECUTE A PARTICULAR OFFENDER THAN TO MAINTAIN THE OFFENDER IN PRISON FOR LIFE, IT COSTS FAR MORE TO FINANCE A SYSTEM IN WHICH THE DECISION IS MADE TO EXECUTE SOME PEOPLE, ALL OF WHOM ARE PROCESSED THROUGH THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, AND SOME OF WHOM MUST STILL BE MAINTAINED FOR LIFE.
0
reply
Lord_hanson
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#220
Report 3 years ago
#220
(Original post by Implication)
It's not the killing itself that costs; it's the existence of a system that permits killing.
This is based on an inefficient system. There is no guarantee that we will use that particular system. We would most likely improve the system we used to use.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (368)
44.39%
No (87)
10.49%
I'm not old enough (374)
45.11%

Watched Threads

View All