Joanna Dennehy: serial killer

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But that's disingenuous, isn't it? The point of lawyers is to be detached - there's a reason we don't let victims sentence criminals, because there must be a consistent punishment for crimes. Otherwise the most compassionate become the biggest targets, which is just barbaric.

I did not make any reference in my posting to how lawyers would view matters, nor did I make any reference to victims sentencing criminals.

I asked forum members how they would react in the totally unprovoked way that I stated and was then attacked by Dennehy.

 

[Oswyntail]

Whilst you are under the attack, do you reason with her and say whatever she does to you, you will have the human understanding as part of living in a civilised society....or not as may be the case.

That is a ridiculous question, and not up to your usual considered standard. Whatever one's beliefs, I suspect that 99.9% of us would physically defend ourselves. But I believe that afterwards I would show compassion. The answer proves or illustrates nothing, and neither does the question.

 

[fowler9]

I think it is a pretty extreme example that I doubt many of us will pass upon. Whilst I don't doubt that she is guilty I still wouldn't execute everyone guilty of a similar crime due to the number of people later to be found innocent. I mean, what do we have? A verdict of really really guilty and this time we mean it?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Judges have got it wrong, repeatedly. For example, Remember the Birmingham Six and Stefan Kizsko? In both cases the Court of Appeal judges upheld their convictions, and a decade earlier they would have been hanged. After decades of campaigning found to be innocent and released after spending too many years locked away. Would have been all for naught if had already been executed after judges upheld their murder convictions.

Execution is revenge, pure and simple. Murder rates are unaffected by the existence of the death penalty.

Instead, in the only western country to retain death penalty, the probability of execution is very dependant upon the perpertrator's race and poverty rather than the nature of the crime.

In one case you have made an assumption that people caught for the crime didn't do it.

It remains possible that the Birmingham six did indeed set the bombs in the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town. However the forensic evidence and the method of extracting the confessions are quite rightly inadmissible, so there is reasonable doubt, so in the eyes of the law they are innocent. Thankfully PACE makes that kind of policing unlawful now.

That being said, I am totally against any kind of capital punishment and agree with you that it is revenge, pure and simple.

 

[455driver]

so in the eyes of the law they are innocent.

They were found not guilty due to lack of (admissible) evidence which is very different from being found innocent.

 

[Oswyntail]

They were found not guilty due to lack of (admissible) evidence which is very different from being found innocent.

The difference being that the accusations will always be in the background. They have been found not guilty, and we should all believe them innocent, unless more evidence comes in and another case is brought.
Or are you a "no smoke without a fire" sort of person?

 

[455driver]

Or are you a "no smoke without a fire" sort of person?

Nope, the complete opposite in fact!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That is a ridiculous question, and not up to your usual considered standard. Whatever one's beliefs, I suspect that 99.9% of us would physically defend ourselves. But I believe that afterwards I would show compassion. The answer proves or illustrates nothing, and neither does the question.

The rhetorical question that I assumed would have been seen was concerning the "turning of the other cheek" even in times of dire consequences....or have we not yet reached that particular point of nirvana in our espousement of civilisation ?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I did not make any reference in my posting to how lawyers would view matters, nor did I make any reference to victims sentencing criminals.

I asked forum members how they would react in the totally unprovoked way that I stated and was then attacked by Dennehy.

My point was that we don't make these sorts of decisions when under emotional duress for a reason.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My point was that we don't make these sorts of decisions when under emotional duress for a reason.

Exactly so. Our journey down the pathway to a full understanding of what a civilised society means still appears not to be in tandem with the Buddhist interpretation in terms of the emotional responses that you make reference to in your posting above.

 

[bnm]

"The circumstantial evidence was overwhelming"

"The witness evidence was overwhelming."

"The fingerprint evidence was overwhelming"

"The forensic evidence was overwhelming"

"The DNA evidence was overwhelming"

All have been proved, at least once, in murder cases, to be wrong. With appeals allowed.

Just because the science improves detection year on year doesn't mean that the science is infallible.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Exactly so. Our journey down the pathway to a full understanding of what a civilised society means still appears not to be in tandem with the Buddhist interpretation in terms of the emotional responses that you make reference to in your posting above.

I don't understand what you mean. I meant literally what I said - that we should be consistent and exact when punishing people. I never said people couldn't be angry about what's been done to them.

 

[Amberley54]

They were found not guilty due to lack of (admissible) evidence which is very different from being found innocent.

THey are innocent in the eyes of the law, unless or until fresh evidence is produced and can satisfy a jury beyond reasonable doubt that they are guilty

If the trial had been twenty years earlier the bogus forensic 'evidence' that the Crown relied upon in the original prosecution would have brought about the death of six innocent people.

 

[455driver]

All the people arguing about the miscarriages are talking about 20/30 year old cases which isnt really relevant to today.

Yes these people were wrongly convicted which basically stinks but as I have mentioned a few times would it likely happen today?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the trial had been twenty years earlier the bogus forensic 'evidence' that the Crown relied upon in the original prosecution would have brought about the death of six innocent people.

And if the trial had happened today they would have been home in time for tea!
Modern forensics would have proved their innocence and all would have been well;.

 

[EM2]

All the people arguing about the miscarriages are talking about 20/30 year old cases which isnt really relevant to today.

Yes these people were wrongly convicted which basically stinks but as I have mentioned a few times would it likely happen today?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


And if the trial had happened today they would have been home in time for tea!
Modern forensics would have proved their innocence and all would have been well;.

People like Barry George, Barri White, Sion Jenkins, David Carrington-Jones, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony, Sally Clark...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...e_cases#England.2C_Wales_and_Northern_Ireland

 

[Searle]

Yeah, we evil liberals are just out to con you. We're all plotting the downfall of society, don't you know? Bloody hell... The only reason the ECHR ever gets involved is if people are having their rights violated. Fun fact: its constitution was written almost entirely by British lawyers sanctioned by Churchill, as he saw it as a way to impose British values on Europe. Another fun fact: that constitution remains the same to this day! (Oh, and I should probably also mention that it's a separate organisation from the EU, but don't let that get in the way of your preconceived ideas.)

Britain - death penalty abolished. Crime has fallen.
Germany - death penalty abolished. Crime has fallen.
France - death penalty abolished. Crime has fallen.
America - death penalty in force. Crime hasn't fallen, and has actually risen.

You can argue to the death about what people deserve, but the simple fact is that the justice system in European countries is more effective at keeping crime down, and the evidence suggests that the abolition of the death penalty has had something to do with it.

I know this is a few pages ago, but people might enjoy this link:

http://traderhabits.com/100-correlation-means-0-causation/

 

[TheKnightWho]

I know this is a few pages ago, but people might enjoy this link:

http://traderhabits.com/100-correlation-means-0-causation/

Correlation is what the scientific method is built on. Causation in statistics simply means we have a good hypothesis to explain why when one thing changes makes another thing also changes - in other words, why that correlation is relevant.

I get that there isn't a particularly adequate explanation of why it's the case at the moment with regards to the death penalty, but really I was only saying that the abolition of the death penalty didn't cause the murder rate to skyrocket.

 

[fowler9]

I know this is a few pages ago, but people might enjoy this link:

http://traderhabits.com/100-correlation-means-0-causation/

I think that might just show that as technology has got better the murder rate has gone down. Other stats have shown that the death penalty has no impact at all on the murder rate. It is just revenge.

 

[Kneedown]

Britain - death penalty abolished. Crime has fallen.

But Murder, which Capital punishment primarily applied to, has risen.....drastically!, even taking into account the increase in population.

Germany - death penalty abolished. Crime has fallen.
France - death penalty abolished. Crime has fallen.

Have Murders fallen?

America - death penalty in force. Crime hasn't fallen, and has actually risen.

Some states with the death penalty have lower Murder rates than others without. Others with the death penalty rarely, if ever, apply it. Even in those States that actively practice Capital Punishment the odds of recieving a prison sentence are still good, so the sweeping statement that "America has the Death Penalty and crime is up" doesn't really prove anything one way or another.
(There is a "Federal Death Penalty" in the USA for some crimes that applies across the whole US, whether the State has the Death Penalty or not)

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Have murders *actually* risen drastically, or due to advances in crime investigation, are we categorising more crimes as murder that previously might have been put down to suicide or natural causes because we didn't know any better?

 

[cjp]

Rather than expensive whole life terms for certain offences, which may or may not be a deterrent,
how about India's cheaper idea?

"Mumbai court orders first death sentences for multiple rapes
Three men to hang under toughened law that carries death penalty for people convicted of multiple sexual assaults"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/04/mumbai-court-death-sentences-multiple-rapes

Of course one might say it is uncivilised,
what if you had the wrong people etc so keep them alive and reform them (never mind the world's spiralling population and dwindling resorces so need why we strive to keep such persons alive reformed or not - what are we leaving the next generation?),
it is legalised murder or revenge
and I understand such view points but it is a lot cheaper.

 

[SS4]

Was it really worth bumping the thread for something discussed to death (no pun intended)? My apologies if I've missed something but I can't see what you've added to the thread with that post

 

[Oswyntail]

...it is a lot cheaper.

I like the occasional steak, but I could live off sliced tesco value bread...it is a lot cheaper.
About as relevant a post as that quoted, and adds as much to the thread.:roll:

 

[TheKnightWho]

Rather than expensive whole life terms for certain offences, which may or may not be a deterrent,
how about India's cheaper idea?


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/04/mumbai-court-death-sentences-multiple-rapes

Of course one might say it is uncivilised,
what if you had the wrong people etc so keep them alive and reform them (never mind the world's spiralling population and dwindling resorces so need why we strive to keep such persons alive reformed or not - what are we leaving the next generation?),
it is legalised murder or revenge
and I understand such view points but it is a lot cheaper.

Spiraling population is a myth, as are dwindling resources. Stop scaremongering.

By the time either becomes an issue, we'll be mining asteroids. Think I'm mental? We've already got companies planning to do it, and have had numerous private rocket launches.

 

[fowler9]

Who cares what is cheaper. There is plenty on the planet for everyone, just some are getting more than others. When my computer stops working I try and fix it, I don't just bin it. I'd hope we treat people the same.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is it cheaper? I was under the impression that if you wish to ensure that there is a low risk of getting it wrong (and any risk is too much for my mind) the number of appeals involved often makes death penalty cases very expensive...

 

[455driver]

Is it cheaper? I was under the impression that if you wish to ensure that there is a low risk of getting it wrong (and any risk is too much for my mind) the number of appeals involved often makes death penalty cases very expensive...

Do you consider there to be any risk of getting it wrong in this or the Lee Rigby cases?

These are the ones that should be injected with a cocktail of drugs!

 

[cjp]

Was it really worth bumping the thread for something discussed to death (no pun intended)? My apologies if I've missed something but I can't see what you've added to the thread with that post

My original post was about cost saving alternatives to whole life sentences.

There was objection to the alternative in case the person found to be guilty was later proved innocent after the punishment part of the whole life term had been served (so they were being kept in prison for the good of Society and at Society's expense) and they had chosen to take their life which some considered to be legalised murder or vengance killing.
There are certain instances thanks to video footage or DNA testing where doubt can be eliminated.

Others suggested long person sentences would enable people to be reformed and objected to the alternative even though the whole life sentence would not allow their return to society reformed or not.

India now has a more robust approach designed to curb rape by perhaps making a person think twice or three times should a case be proven using modern techniques.

But if you think it adds nothing to what has been said before then should you or I ask a mod to close this thread?

 

[fowler9]

Do you consider there to be any risk of getting it wrong in this or the Lee Rigby cases?

These are the ones that should be injected with a cocktail of drugs!

But this has to be written up in law which makes it more complicated. How do you feel about British soldiers who have blatantly illegaly killed people overseas? I am thinking of a guy who I am 100% behind by the way. He killed someone deliberately without reason and by the letter of the law should be executed if that was how we did things.

 

[cjp]

Spiraling population is a myth, as are dwindling resources. Stop scaremongering.

By the time either becomes an issue, we'll be mining asteroids. Think I'm mental? We've already got companies planning to do it, and have had numerous private rocket launches.

I quote from the UN statistics:-

World Population 2005 6,514,751,000
World Popualtion 2012 7,080,072,000
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/vitstats/default.htm
which confirms an increasing population.

And Just this week the UN were warning ....

But it was the finding that climate change could threaten global food security that caught the attention of government officials from 115 countries who reviewed the report. "All aspects of food security are potentially affected by climate change," the report said.
The scientists said there was enough evidence to say for certain that climate change is affecting food production on land and sea.

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/index.html

Prices of main food crops such as wheat and maize are now close to those that sparked riots in 25 countries in 2008. FAO figures released this week suggest that 870 million people are malnourished and the food crisis is growing in the Middle East and Africa. Wheat production this year is expected to be 5.2% below 2011, with yields of most other crops, except rice, also falling, says the UN.

And I could go on to mention dwindling North Sea Oil and Gas along with those parts of the world that lack sufficient water resources but I suspect you would also consider such facts to be a Myth compared to your own unsubstantiated opinions.
You are welcome to hold your opinions but do not confuse opinion with facts.



Good luck with your asteroids and the resources they will provide for the poor and needy in Africa, Asia and Europe. That is truly Pie in The Sky - my suggestion was for a minor cost and resources saving here and now.