EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[3141]

On a similar testing of opinion of the general public by referendum, how do you feel that the matter of the reinstatement of the death penalty would fare in such a referendum?

Quite likely in favour of reinstating it. There'd be a bus going round with how much we'd save if murderers were executed instead of being kept in prison for many years. The Daily Mail would tell us how the number of murders would fall dramatically once the death penalty was brought back. If there was a particularly unpleasant case of a killing during the campaign it would probably influence the outcome, and if there wasn't an outstanding case the papers in favour of the death penalty would make the most of the ones that did happen. A campaign for a big change has an advantage because it can claim, without much evidence, that things would be so much better if we did this or that. A campaign that says No, don't change things, sounds dull and unadventurous. The problem that if a mistake is made and an innocent person is executed you can never put things right would receive very little attention.

 

[Howardh]

On a similar testing of opinion of the general public by referendum, how do you feel that the matter of the reinstatement of the death penalty would fare in such a referendum?

Another example of why referendums should be sparse. The country would probably vote in favour of the DP!

Yes, our politicians were particularly clueless in allowing this referendum, they should really have thought longer about the consequences, and the fact that more than 6 months on still no-one has one iota where it's going is a clue.

 

[Howardh]

Quite likely in favour of reinstating it. There'd be a bus going round with how much we'd save if murderers were executed instead of being kept in prison for many years. The Daily Mail would tell us how the number of murders would fall dramatically once the death penalty was brought back. If there was a particularly unpleasant case of a killing during the campaign it would probably influence the outcome, and if there wasn't an outstanding case the papers in favour of the death penalty would make the most of the ones that did happen. A campaign for a big change has an advantage because it can claim, without much evidence, that things would be so much better if we did this or that. A campaign that says No, don't change things, sounds dull and unadventurous. The problem that if a mistake is made and an innocent person is executed you can never put things right would receive very little attention.

Looking at recent events in the news, there is now the likelyhood that a private forensics firm has been tampering with blood, hair and possibly urine samples of suspects arrested, and the tampering could have caused them to be guilty of a crime they simply didn't commit.

Now suppose one was their hair found at a murder scene, and it had been contaminated in the laboratory with the victim's blood being found on it? Guilty, hanged, then innocent?

I don't trust anyone in authority, police, forensics, governments, the ICC, no-one. Which is why I would never vote for the death penalty - it could be me that's innocent but slaughtered by the State.

 

[furnessvale]

Well for starters the Pound dropped making the cost of imports, fuel (bought wholesale in dollars), holidays and such like more expensive. Of course the Pound goes up and down normally, but that was a significant and almost immediate response to the Brexit vote.

I do agree that there was a load of nonsense about the economy crumbling the Day After - anyone saying that should have remembered that it's years before Brexit and we can still carry on trading as before in the meantime.

Now, whether the economy crashes in the months after Brexit we will have to wait and see - but if it does, will Brexiters accept the blame?

The lower pound also means our exports are cheaper and many exporters welcome the fall in value.

IF the economy crashes after Brexit I for one will examine exactly what has happened and why. Who knows where the EU will be by then?

 

[furnessvale]

Looking at recent events in the news, there is now the likelyhood that a private forensics firm has been tampering with blood, hair and possibly urine samples of suspects arrested, and the tampering could have caused them to be guilty of a crime they simply didn't commit.

Now suppose one was their hair found at a murder scene, and it had been contaminated in the laboratory with the victim's blood being found on it? Guilty, hanged, then innocent?

I don't trust anyone in authority, police, forensics, governments, the ICC, no-one. Which is why I would never vote for the death penalty - it could be me that's innocent but slaughtered by the State.

Genuinely interested in this. Any chance of a link?

 

[Howardh]

Genuinely interested in this. Any chance of a link?

It was on the BBC news for about a minute - and I agree it needs further investigation. Seems to be samples of hair/blood tested for drug use.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39020384

Sorry - I'm having difficulty cutting and pasting*; it seems to want to copy the whole page rather than just the article. Can someone do that for me (I'm on Waterfox - wondering if that's the problem) MANY THANKS IF YOU CAN!!

*When I left-click, it blues the whole page, grrr.....*

 

[PhilipRhayader]

It was on the BBC news for about a minute - and I agree it needs further investigation. Seems to be samples of hair/blood tested for drug use.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-39020384

Sorry - I'm having difficulty cutting and pasting*; it seems to want to copy the whole page rather than just the article. Can someone do that for me (I'm on Waterfox - wondering if that's the problem) MANY THANKS IF YOU CAN!!

*When I left-click, it blues the whole page, grrr.....*

Here you are, Howard:

Hundreds of cases could be reviewed after two men who work at a laboratory used by police to test drug samples were arrested.
Randox Testing Services (RTS) is used by forces across the UK to analyse samples used in prosecutions.
Police chiefs said it had been told 484 cases handled by the firm since November 2015 may have been affected.
The men, 47 and 31, were arrested on suspicion of perverting the course of justice and bailed, police said.
RTS said it was fully co-operating with the investigation and some tests could be "re-run".
The allegations relate to drug tests analysed at its Manchester office.
'No question mark'
In a statement, RTS said there was no evidence to say alcohol samples were affected because they were not tested at that site.
The firm, based in Northern Ireland, said the investigation centres on the "manipulation of quality control data, which supports test results".
A statement added: "A number of toxicology results have been compromised. RTS are working tirelessly to fully assess the impact and implications for each case.
"Where possible, when viable, samples will be re-run to provide robust, uncompromised results.
"There is no question mark over the RTS quality system or the robustness of our practices and procedures."
Chief Constable Debbie Simpson, the National Police Chiefs' Council lead for forensic science, said Randox had provided each force with a list of cases that could have been affected.
"Working in partnership with the Crown Prosecution Service, we have provided guidance to forces so they are able to review each case to determine if compromised data played a part in prosecution and the CPS will then take appropriate action in any cases identified," she added.

 

[me123]

Quite likely in favour of reinstating it. There'd be a bus going round with how much we'd save if murderers were executed instead of being kept in prison for many years. The Daily Mail would tell us how the number of murders would fall dramatically once the death penalty was brought back.

These claims about the death penalty are utterly incorrect. In the United States, it costs more to execute a convicted murderer than it does to sentence them to life without parole. And there's no correlation between the death penalty and murder rates (in fact, states with the death penalty consistently have higher murder rates than states without the death penalty, and this hasn't changed in decades). It might seem logical to assume that the DP is cheaper and will reduce the murder rate, but the evidence does not support this.

This is the problem with referenda. The average voter doesn't care about statistics or evidence. They're going to be easily persuaded by whichever politician they like (and, for many, it's the politician who uses the shortest words). In the era of post-factual politics, these simple lies could well win the day. The same was true with the EU referendum. Until we start teaching people to look at and appraise evidence, we shouldn't have referenda.

 

[yorksrob]

Another example of why referendums should be sparse.

My view is still that any major constitutional change should be put to a referendum. If we'd done this for all the various treaty's altering the nature of the EEC/EU over the years, we wouldn't be in this situation now.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could it also be the case that some of false test results of Randox Testing Services have been a case of collusion with criminal organisations to the advantage of criminals who were in fact guilty of the crimes that were committed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

These claims about the death penalty are utterly incorrect. In the United States, it costs more to execute a convicted murderer than it does to sentence them to life without parole.

If one were to calculate the average term of incarceration after death penalty reprieve in America that was spent in prison, with the average annual cost of that, how would that total monetary cost compare to the actual cost of an execution?

 

[Howardh]

Here you are, Howard:

Thanks for that. Can I borrow your browser?!!

R/e Death Penalty - if the state has to hang anyone, it hasn't worked.

 

[Howardh]

Could it also be the case that some of false test results of Randox Testing Services have been a case of collusion with criminal organisations to the advantage of criminals who were in fact guilty of the crimes that were committed.

Yes indeed. We need further details; although it's better for the guilty to be wrongly found innocent than the innocent be wrongly found guilty. But the case is disturbing and adds to my feeling that I trust nobody.

 

[me123]

I'm not aware of that data existing, nor am I sure what it would contribute. The bulk of the costs would likely be attributable to the part of the sentence when they were sentenced to death, and the large bureaucratic and legal burden that comes with it. Assuming it was a last minute reprieve, it would undoubtedly be higher because most (all?) of the costs associated with execution will have already been met. Ultimately, not having the death penalty would remove those costs in all circumstances.

Besides, I'm not wishing to turn this into a Death Penalty debate. I was just looking at the issue of misinformation.

 

[shakey1961]

Do you think this will change after the UK leaves the EU? If so, what is it that makes you think that will happen?

No I don't, but then none of us have all the answers. Just proves how difficult it is as we're all at each other's throats about it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not aware of that data existing, nor am I sure what it would contribute. The bulk of the costs would likely be attributable to the part of the sentence when they were sentenced to death, and the large bureaucratic and legal burden that comes with it. Assuming it was a last minute reprieve, it would undoubtedly be higher because most (all?) of the costs associated with execution will have already been met. Ultimately, not having the death penalty would remove those costs in all circumstances.

Thanks for that. I was not really sure of the financial cost comparison that my reading of your original posting seemed to suggest.

 

[Howardh]

No I don't, but then none of us have all the answers. Just proves how difficult it is as we're all at each other's throats about it.

Whatever happens, there's a good chance the majority of the country will be against the result - I can't think of any outcome where more than 50% of the country will be satisfied. Certainly a compromise - such as remaining/rejoining/whatever in the EEA - may keep the majority of remainers on board, so add the leavers happy with that and you could well be getting close to a majority; but the further away you go from what we have now will mean we are still at each others throats :cry:

If in five years time I find that my standard of living hasn't worsened, and I can still tour Europe with nothing more than a passport (and maybe the API form for all modes of transport) and have my EHIC card (or equivalent) then I'll accept the situation, maybe even get to like watching the EU implode if we are doing well....we might even get "schaudenfreude" into the Oxford ED!

But..until then there's a long road ahead. And it doesn't look the smoothest from here.

 

[EM2]

No I don't, but then none of us have all the answers. Just proves how difficult it is as we're all at each other's throats about it.

So you feel that you have suffered from the actions of the Government, and are in favour of leaving the EU, but don't expect your situation to change for the better as a result, why do you want to leave?
I am genuinely confused.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

These claims about the death penalty are utterly incorrect. In the United States, it costs more to execute a convicted murderer than it does to sentence them to life without parole.

Including the costs over a convict's lifetime of implementing the life sentence? And how much of those costs are to do with the particular legal systems in the USA (which often do look somewhat broken to an outside observer) rather than to do with the death penalty per se? By itself, the statistic about the USA is interesting, but without comparison with other countries and some analysis of what things contribute to the cost and whether those things are USA-specific, it's probably not very meaningful.

And there's no correlation between the death penalty and murder rates (in fact, states with the death penalty consistently have higher murder rates than states without the death penalty, and this hasn't changed in decades).

Which is of course exactly what you'd expect if (rather plausibly), higher murder rates in particular areas cause politicians in those areas to be more favourable to the death penalty! You need to be a lot more careful with use of statistics here - and avoiding confusing correlation with causation - an observation which I think is rather appropriate given your later comment that:

Besides, I'm not wishing to turn this into a Death Penalty debate. I was just looking at the issue of misinformation.

(I do btw agree with you that the death penalty would not be an appropriate topic for a referendum, precisely because too many people would end up voting based on misinformation etc.)

 

[najaB]

Including the costs over a convict's lifetime of implementing the life sentence?

Yes. There are people who have done the maths and it turns out that it is cheaper to lock someone up for life than to execute them. Whether is it moral or not is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[3141]

Thanks for that. Can I borrow your browser?!!

R/e Death Penalty - if the state has to hang anyone, it hasn't worked.

If a murderer has to be imprisoned for life, the threat of life imprisonment hasn't worked either.

In 1965, in the course of the debate that led to the abolition of the death penalty, a book was published which included brief accounts of all the murders in Britain since 1945 which had led to someone being executed. Very many of the murderers were mentally backward, disturbed, or carried away with rage when they committed the crime. Obviously they hadn't been deterred, and at the crucial moment they were not in a state to say to themselves "Hang on a moment, I could get executed if I do this." The penalty for murder, whether it's death or imprisonment, is valuable if it deters others who are contemplating the crime from going ahead because they're afraid of the consequences.

 

[3141]

These claims about the death penalty are utterly incorrect. In the United States, it costs more to execute a convicted murderer than it does to sentence them to life without parole. And there's no correlation between the death penalty and murder rates (in fact, states with the death penalty consistently have higher murder rates than states without the death penalty, and this hasn't changed in decades). It might seem logical to assume that the DP is cheaper and will reduce the murder rate, but the evidence does not support this.

QUOTE]

Yes. There are people who have done the maths and it turns out that it is cheaper to lock someone up for life than to execute them. Whether is it moral or not is left as an exercise for the reader.

When I said, in my earlier post, that if there was a referendum about the death penalty

"There'd be a bus going round with how much we'd save if murderers were executed instead of being kept in prison for many years",

I was referring to the cost of carrying out an execution compared with the cost of 15, 20, 25 or more years of imprisonment.

The source to which najaB provided the link shows that in America the costs of trials that lead to the death penalty, if you include all the appeals, is higher than the ones where the prosecution seeks a life sentence.

I don't want to argue about the details, but imagine if we were actually having that debate leading to a referendum. The supporters of the death penalty say it would be cheaper to execute murderers than to imprison them for life. The opponents say, "These claims are utterly incorrect. In America the average costs of a prosecution seeking the death penalty are higher than those seeking life imprisonment, if you take into account all the appeals, and the costs of keeping someone in prison while you go through all those appeals, and...." I don't think they're going to get very far with that - it doesn't directly compare with what the supporters are saying, and by the time the opponents have explained what they mean the supporters will have switched off and gone to order their next drink.

This sure does show the problems of putting a complex subject to a referendum. Let's hope that one doesn't happen.

 

[Trog]

Yes. There are people who have done the maths and it turns out that it is cheaper to lock someone up for life than to execute them. Whether is it moral or not is left as an exercise for the reader.

That is an almost meaningless comment as it is totally dependant on the legal system involved, from what little I know about the American legal system by the time you have exhausted the appeals process you have paid to imprison them for years on end anyway. So no wonder it is expensive as you are paying for both the execution and long term imprisonment.

No doubt if you walked them straight out of court onto a gallows with no mucking about the death penalty would be way cheaper. It is all down to the complexity and expense of the system used, make the death penalty only apply to crimes where there is no doubt what so ever of guilt. So appeals are not an issue, and it could be a cheap option.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Has anyone access to official statistics that show the annual cost of prisoner incarceration in Britain per inmate?

 

[AlterEgo]

Do I understand about devastated lives? How about undiagnosed Coeliac disease for 40 years? How about panic attacks for that length of time, resolved going gluten free? How about being unable to work for that time cos of doctors happy to just keep giving you sick notes and tablets? How about living in mouldy, freezing flats owned by scum private landlords? I live a devastated life every single effing day. I would love to have had a job, a trade, paid my taxes etc. So yes I do care about others lives being devastated, especially by Mr Cameron, the Tory government and the bedroom tax!!! Stigmatising the poor as work-shy scroungers. Robbing the poor to give to his rich banker friends. So don't have a go at me about not caring!!!

However, we had a democratic vote. One side won, we have to abide by the decision. Stop moaning trying to overturn it cos the minority lost!

I like how you tell people to stop moaning about something they feel unable to control after that incredible tirade about things you are unable to control.

I don't take any pleasure in saying that the inevitable outcome of Brexit is a shifting to the right of the Tory party, a realigning of the economy to be more tax-haven-esque, and a loss of significant workers' rights and status.

I cannot see how any of that is going to benefit people like you.

 

[me123]

Including the costs over a convict's lifetime of implementing the life sentence? And how much of those costs are to do with the particular legal systems in the USA (which often do look somewhat broken to an outside observer) rather than to do with the death penalty per se? By itself, the statistic about the USA is interesting, but without comparison with other countries and some analysis of what things contribute to the cost and whether those things are USA-specific, it's probably not very meaningful.

Most of the reliable data comes from the US, being one of the few major Western powers and probably the most transparent country in the world to regularly employ the death penalty. In terms of the countries where death is an option, the US approach would be most likely to be similar to our approach.

The data clearly demonstrates increased spending on capital cases compared to non-capital murder cases. Some estimates suggest that an average capital case is $1.5M more expensive than an average non-capital case. These figures look at the whole cost of the case, including the judicial process and cost of the punishment (detention and, in the case of the DP, carrying out the sentence). The difference does relate predominently to the upfront charges of the trial and extensive appeal system, which outweigh the costs of life imprisonment. However, I think it would be foolish to suggest that we wouldn't have similarly robust appeal systems in place - the death penalty is irreversible, and an extensive appeals process would need to be facilitated prior to the sentence being carried out. The argument I hear so often that we'd "just get on with it" would risk a huge number of miscarriages of justice.

Which is of course exactly what you'd expect if (rather plausibly), higher murder rates in particular areas cause politicians in those areas to be more favourable to the death penalty! You need to be a lot more careful with use of statistics here - and avoiding confusing correlation with causation - an observation which I think is rather appropriate given your later comment that:

I didn't imply a causation though, did I? You're putting words into my mouth. I was refuting the alleged claim that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. I was trying to be brief in an effort to avoid starting a debate on capital punishment, but since that's clearly failed, let's look at the data.

Clicky - Image is too big

This graph demonstrates the murder rates in states which allow the death penalty (dark red) compared to those who do not (pink). The murder rate in states which support the death penalty is consistently higher as I've already commented. That is, of course, not caused by the death penalty, and I have never implied that it was - there are many factors which contribute to murder rates.

However, if the death penalty was truly a deterrent, one would expect to see at least a narrowing in the difference between the two groups of states over time. Nothing of the sort has happened. Over the 25 years demonstrated in the graph, states which use the death penalty have continued to have higher murder rates on average than states which do not employ the death penalty. This supports my position that there is no evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent.

 

[yorksrob]

If a murderer has to be imprisoned for life, the threat of life imprisonment hasn't worked either.

It hasn't worked for that person. However that doesn't necessarily mean that someone else hasn't been deterred. They obviously won't show up in any statistics owing to the fact that they've been deterred.

 

[najaB]

That is an almost meaningless comment as it is totally dependant on the legal system involved, from what little I know about the American legal system by the time you have exhausted the appeals process you have paid to imprison them for years on end anyway. So no wonder it is expensive as you are paying for both the execution and long term imprisonment.

There's no reason to assume that the UK system would be any different. Given that the condemned person's life is - literally - on the line I would expect cases to go all the way up to the Court of Appeal at the very least, if not the Supreme Court.

No doubt if you walked them straight out of court onto a gallows with no mucking about the death penalty would be way cheaper. It is all down to the complexity and expense of the system used, make the death penalty only apply to crimes where there is no doubt what so ever of guilt. So appeals are not an issue, and it could be a cheap option.

Many an innocent person has been convicted with no doubt about their guilt.

 

[Trog]

Many an innocent person has been convicted with no doubt about their guilt.

The legal system is beyond reasonable doubt, which is why I deliberately said no doubt what so ever. To emphasise that I intended to specify a superior near absolute level of proof of guilt, which is possible for some types of crime.

 

[najaB]

The legal system is beyond reasonable doubt, which is why I deliberately said no doubt what so ever. To emphasise that I intended to specify a superior near absolute level of proof of guilt, which is possible for some types of crime.

I know what you said. And I replied to it.

'Near absolute' still leaves the possibility that innocent people will be convicted.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty (I'm also not particularly enamoured with the concept) but anybody proposing its reintroduction has to accept the reality that some innocent people will be executed.