Should Peter Sutcliffe be released?

[Rolfe]

Even if I agreed, I didn't realise 'workability' was a prerequisite for the discussion. At any rate, I believe it would be readily workable and implementable, it is simply a matter of desire. And if the voters ultimately want it, the politicians will deliver.

Oh, so it doesn't have to be workable? If you're just running a private fantasy with no connection to reality, don't let me spoil your fun!

No, it's not workable. IANAL, but try suggesting to anyone who is that there should be an extra category of "super-certain" convictions over and above "beyond reasonable doubt", and see what they say.

And I don't think the politicians will deliver, even if you managed to convince a majority of the merits of this hare-brained idea. The British public has consistently been supportive of the death penalty every time there has been an opinion poll, but it has never gained parliamentary support. Every time I have a rant about the uselessness and venality of our politicians, I remember that one, and it cheers me up no end.

And then there's the EU aspect.

What has been in discussion here is whether or not the "what if we make a mistake" argument washes or not.
I understand the misgivings about DNA, the process etc however I have yet to see an argument put up that - if all the boxes are ticked - gives this any real weight or validity.

As I've explained, you have to remove the "confession" box, so pretty much every one of the executions is going to be someone protesting their innocence. This is going to be preceeded by legal wrangling of unprecedented complexity. And for what? No deterrent, no decrease in costs, nothing but your desire for blood and revenge.

We have been unable to cite one example in the DNA age whereby a person that fits the requirements would have been wrongly executed.

Remember, we are talking the 'worst of the worst' here. Those with no ifs, buts or maybe's when it comes to their guilt: Bundy, Gacey, Hindley, Suttcliffe, Milat etc.

You're putting much too much emphasis on DNA. It's just another piece of evidence, and it's not even a feature of the majority of cases. I deplore the lack of imagination that can't see the horrible mess that such a system would inevitably incur. The whole idea of a "super-certain" category of guilt is legally untenable and in any case owes more to hindsight than anything else.

Why?

As I understand it, no state with the death penalty on its statute books is allowed to be a member of the EU. Which pretty much ends the argument for practical purposes unless you're a UKIP supporter. I wouldn't be surprised to find that restoring the death penalty was one of their policies, actually.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

You're putting much too much emphasis on DNA. It's just another piece of evidence, and it's not even a feature of the majority of cases.

...snip...

"DNA evidence " appears to have become in popular culture synonymous with "guilty", but from what I've read about actual court cases this is not how it is presented in court, as you say it is just one piece of evidence that will be used.

 

[Soapy Sam]

As I understand it, no state with the death penalty on its statute books is allowed to be a member of the EU. Which pretty much ends the argument for practical purposes unless you're a UKIP supporter. I wouldn't be surprised to find that restoring the death penalty was one of their policies, actually.

Rolfe.

Oooh! Do they have anyone standing in Hamilton?

Seriously- why do you think the opinion of politicians on CP is consistently at odds with public opinion?
Moral high mindedness?
Intellectual superiority?
Or a sheeplike fear of breaking from the crowd and being Godwinned by the press?

I have no absolute certainty of course, but based on past observation, if I had to choose one of the above...

 

[Rolfe]

Since it's the tabloid press who are at the forefront of the "hang em high" brigade, I don't think it's fear of press reaction. I'm a bit surprised that so few of them have used the issue to court popularity, actually.

So, I'll go with moral high-mindedness laced with a bit of intellectual superiority.

And I think I just saw the moon turning blue out there....

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Don't you have any sheep to dissect?
Gods- lambing soon. Have fun.

 

[Darat]

Obviously it is because most of them are murderers...

 

[Soapy Sam]

Obviously it is because most of them are murderers...

And people say I'm a cynic.

 

[Darat]

If they do they've been spelling it in a strange way...

 

[Rolfe]

If there's a counter argument to the "Big Brother is watching us" paranoia, it may be that all those security cameras in public places, all those ATMs and GPS tracking devices actually make it harder to fit someone up, because there is a high probability that independent evidence may provide an alibi. Ultimately, carrying a device which records our position constantly may be the only reliable proof of innocence. Of course, it would have to be implanted and tamperproof...Brave New World, eh?

Technology changes things, and we can't always figure out in what ways. Do I suspect the authorities of regularly and blatantly fitting up people who have no connection with a case to the point of fabricating evidence? Not really. So I'd say a CCTV alibi would generally be a positive thing.

I wonder about the DNA database. It seems unjust to keep the DNA of people who haven't been convicted of any crime, if you're not keeping the entire population. And why take DNA samples from someone caught drink driving or cheating on their taxes anyway?

However, I heard about an interesting case recently. I wish I could find a report. A serious criminal had managed to avoid his DNA going on the database, so had not been caught. His son was apprehended for a minor misdemeanour, and his DNA was collected. It flagged up a strong connection to the unsolved crimes, but not as the perpetrator. It was realised that the perpetrator was the parent of the person whose DNA was on file. And hey presto he was caught.

I can see a lot of utility to a DNA database of the entire population, but at the same time a lot of lessons would have to be taken on board as to the true degree of weight that should be put on such evidence.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

A cynic with varifocals , a crap keyboard and no spellchecker.
Fortunately there's no shortage of smartasses.

 

[Rolfe]

Don't you have any sheep to dissect?
Gods- lambing soon. Have fun.

Pre-lambing is just as fun. The bloody things abort with monotonous regularity and people want to know why.

Not me on the take today. I'm writing an educational presentation. Can you spell "displacement activity"?

[Rolfe opens the files of the aborted lambs and the two dead sheep from last week that still need their final reports done....]

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Technology changes things, and we can't always figure out in what ways. Do I suspect the authorities of regularly and blatantly fitting up people who have no connection with a case to the point of fabricating evidence? Not really. So I'd say a CCTV alibi would generally be a positive thing.

...snip....

Yeah this isn't the 70s!

 

[Soapy Sam]

From what I remember reading about the first actual case of DNA fingerprinting, the actual perpetrator got a friend to give a sample in his place. Obviously with a national database using samples taken at birth or in chool that sort of loophole would tighten.
The trouble is it's just too tempting. If I was a policeman, I'd be horrified that anyone would throw away such vital "future" evidence.
One reason I'm not a policeman.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Oh, so it doesn't have to be workable? If you're just running a private fantasy with no connection to reality, don't let me spoil your fun!

If you read carefully it would be workable. There is no reason it would not work except the desire.
But please, try and insult me some more.

No, it's not workable. IANAL, but try suggesting to anyone who is that there should be an extra category of "super-certain" convictions over and above "beyond reasonable doubt", and see what they say.

Don't know what IANAL means so if my response seems off the mark that may have some bearing.
If you care to review the criteria, there are a number of boxes that need to be ticked. "Super duper certainty" would be the legal term you would apply I guess, mine would be more of a gradient of evil (for want of another term) coupled with their guilt under law.

For example, A serial killer who is caught with the proverbial 'smoking gun', admits his guilt, shows no genuine remorse, killed for the thrill of it and there is held incontrovertible proof - would be a candidate.
The person who in a fit of rage kills their spouse is not.

And I don't think the politicians will deliver, even if you managed to convince a majority of the merits of this hare-brained idea. The British public has consistently been supportive of the death penalty every time there has been an opinion poll, but it has never gained parliamentary support. Every time I have a rant about the uselessness and venality of our politicians, I remember that one, and it cheers me up no end.

You might be right about the politicians, I have little idea about the climate or feelings over there.
As for a hare brained idea, how hare brained can it be if the British public have been supportive of it?
And it was a good effort at an insult, thanks for not disappointing me.

There will come a time when a crime so vicious occurs that the noise will be unignorable.

As I've explained, you have to remove the "confession" box, so pretty much every one of the executions is going to be someone protesting their innocence. This is going to be preceeded by legal wrangling of unprecedented complexity. And for what? No deterrent, no decrease in costs, nothing but your desire for blood and revenge.

And as I have explained to you, there is more than one criteria that needs to be met. We are talking only of the likes of Suttcliffe, Hindley, Gacey, Bundy, Milat etc.
As far as costs and deterrents are concerned, that is another debate again. At the moment, I thought we were disciussing the plausability of a legal process that would include CP.
I reckon "blood revenge" has as much to do with it as you being an apologist for mass murderers for not wanting CP.
But keep throwing in that insult, I'm not disappointed.

You're putting much too much emphasis on DNA. It's just another piece of evidence, and it's not even a feature of the majority of cases. I deplore the lack of imagination that can't see the horrible mess that such a system would inevitably incur. The whole idea of a "super-certain" category of guilt is legally untenable and in any case owes more to hindsight than anything else.

Not at all, I believe you brought it up as fallable (and in some circumstances, sure it is), I have merely pointed out that you can't provide a single case where we would have executed the wrong person.

But again, there is more than one condition that needs to be met, DNA is just one of them that falls under the current requirement of beyond reasonable doubt.

As I understand it, no state with the death penalty on its statute books is allowed to be a member of the EU. Which pretty much ends the argument for practical purposes unless you're a UKIP supporter. I wouldn't be surprised to find that restoring the death penalty was one of their policies, actually.

I didn't realise the discussion related to members of the EU only and I have no idea what UKIP is (but I could guess it is a breakaway group of some sort).
Should I excuse myself from the discussion because I am from Australia? And that being the case, one wonders why you would have brought the discussion this far if you were going just going to play that card.

I guess I and others can continue, as Britain isn't playing any more cos they're not allowed.

 

[zooterkin]

Don't know what IANAL

I Am Not A Lawyer.

I didn't realise the discussion related to members of the EU only and I have no idea what UKIP is (but I could guess it is a breakaway group of some sort).
Should I excuse myself from the discussion because I am from Australia?

Ahem. *points to the thread title*


Peter Sutcliffe is a British citizen in prison in Britain. Nothing stopping you taking part in the discussion, but inevitably the context will be the current situation in the UK.

 

[Pikachu]

Whatever people watching the OJ Simpson show may have been led to believe its not that easy to plant DNA (and planting fingerprints is the stuff of fantasy). Apart from the fact not everybody is a secretor, you have to get hold of the stuff to plant and then you would have to get it to the place to plant it in good enough condition to examine and in such a way that it was consistent with the known facts of the crime. Most SOCO (CSI) would spot problems on eyeballing the scene.
We're warned to be careful about innocent contamination possibilities, fingerprints/DNA on portable objects etc Also the possibility of links to close family members - further tests can be done. In one case we were dealing with identical twins and we had to establish Twin B's alibi for him - locked up in a category "B" prison, before we could use the DNA to prove Twin A was the burglar.

In the UK we do not have jury selection as such. Unless someone selected for the jury is actually known to a participant in the trial the jurors are the first twelve people whose names are selected. Verdicts are by a majority (simplified but true) of at least 9-2. I would think that in this country at least 3 out of 4 people are going to have qualms about either sentencing someone to death or knowing that if they find someone guilty the Judge may (in this country at the moment juries have no say in sentences -they judge the facts). I believe the rest of the Commonwealth is similar.
Appeals against death sentences imposed by Judges in some of the smaller Commonwealth States are still heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (basically sitting as a supreme court for countries that really don't have the size or level of judicial experience for one of their own) and reading their judgements can be an eye-opener.

 

[Worm]

>Soapy
Sorry, I expressed myself badly, but I think Rolfe summed it up in a more coherent way

My bad.

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah this isn't the 70s!

Point taken. You'd think I didn't know all about RARDE, and Feraday and Hayes and their little games. I suppose, I'm just relying on the fact that I'm not an Irishman with acquaintances connected to the IRA, and who's living in a squat, or a Libyan intelligence officer who's been told that no matter what happens, what he was really doing on the day in question will not be revealed.

Some nasty stuff has happened, without a doubt.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Alfie, I don't see the point. You're Australian, and yet you want to persuade the British criminal justice system (or its various bits) to re-introduce the death penalty, but only for cases which meet a brand new set of criteria you're making up on the fly, and which have no basis in current law.

This despite the fact that we'd have to leave the EU to do it.

The lawyers would tell you that what you propose is ill-thought-through and unworkable. The politicians wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. You can't give any advantage that would accrue from this, except to satisfy your lust for blood and revenge.

You're running a private fantasy that has little to do with the topic. I can't stop you, but I don't see the point in replying any more. Australia doesn't have the death penalty either. If you're so keen, why not start a discussion on how Australia should change its stance on the matter?

http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/death_penalty/australia.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Australia

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

In the UK we do not have jury selection as such. Unless someone selected for the jury is actually known to a participant in the trial the jurors are the first twelve people whose names are selected. Verdicts are by a majority (simplified but true) of at least 9-2.

Point of information - that's probably true for England, which is of course the relevant jurisdiction for Sutcliffe, but in Scotland there are 15 people on a jury.

Appeals against death sentences imposed by Judges in some of the smaller Commonwealth States are still heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (basically sitting as a supreme court for countries that really don't have the size or level of judicial experience for one of their own) and reading their judgements can be an eye-opener.

Any more details on any of these?

Rolfe.