Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Should Peter Sutcliffe be released?
- Thread starter Rolfe
- Start date
Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh, totally. There's a pretty long list, but that one's very near the top.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Very much so. It's an excellent rebuttal to those who claim DNA has eliminated miscarriages of justice. Although DNA wasn't involved, the science that cleared Kiszko was just as clear and unambiguous - perhaps even more so. It's a classic case of indisputable science being subject to the human element, something from which even DNA testing isn't immune.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I keep forgetting the poor guy's name, and so leaving it out of the list I tend to post when yet another "debunker" asserts that if someone has been convicted in court then they are undeniably guilty and anyone questioning this is a conspiracy theorist.
Stefan Kiszko (I need to practise that), Barry George, Sally Clark, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony, the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, I'm sure there are a lot more. But you're right, he's at the top.
Rolfe.
Stefan Kiszko (I need to practise that), Barry George, Sally Clark, Angela Cannings, Donna Anthony, the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, I'm sure there are a lot more. But you're right, he's at the top.
Rolfe.
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2001
- Messages
- 8,957
Right at the top, due to the heinous nature of the murder of which he was accused, his total lack of any involvement whatsoever in the crime, the certainty with which his innocence was proven and the fact that he was an ordinary, everyday Joe with no criminal background whatsoever. If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone.
Here's another case, albeit Australian.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
I think someone mentioned earlier that there is line to be drawn somewhere.
Now I'm no jurist but it seems to me there are occasions where permanent and irrevocable incarceration or the death penalty are valid : the convicted's lives and/or freedom are forfeit. I say this but there are caveats required and the following must be considered:
- the nature of the crime (we are talking multiple murders here, serial killers etc)
- the reason for the crime (eg thrill, or act of passion - the former being more heinous).
- admission of guilt.
- Incontrovertable proof (smoking gun-type requirements)
- mental capacity and fitness.
- contrition
- and others.
If the perpretrators tick enough of the boxes, hang em high.
Now I'm no jurist but it seems to me there are occasions where permanent and irrevocable incarceration or the death penalty are valid : the convicted's lives and/or freedom are forfeit. I say this but there are caveats required and the following must be considered:
- the nature of the crime (we are talking multiple murders here, serial killers etc)
- the reason for the crime (eg thrill, or act of passion - the former being more heinous).
- admission of guilt.
- Incontrovertable proof (smoking gun-type requirements)
- mental capacity and fitness.
- contrition
- and others.
If the perpretrators tick enough of the boxes, hang em high.
Rolfe
Adult human female
So there's your problem really. We've been through this on another thread. People admit their guilt all the time, when they're not actually guilty. Kiszko did. And sometimes what seems to be "incontrovertible proof" turns out to be nothing of the sort.
In fact admission of guilt works the other way in Britain. One of the criteria for getting parole is expressing of remorse. However, it's a bit hard to express remorse if you're adamant you didn't do it. Thus, there is a strong incentive to confess at that stage, even if you didn't do it at all. As far as I remember, Kiszko was also caught in that one. He served far longer than need be, because he wasn't expressing remorse. For the obvious reason.
I agree there are murderers who aren't exactly on the list of poster children for the anti-death-penalty movement. Sutcliffe is one of them. Brady, Hindley, West, Huntley, Shipman, the list goes on. But I'd far rather keep these guys in jail than risk someone like Kiszko being hung. And that's before I start on the dehumanising effect on society of judicially sanctioning the taking of a human life.
ETA: Actually, the "incontrovertible proof" bit is even more problematic than that. Every conviction is supposed to be proved "beyond reasonable doubt". How can you possibly introduce a higher standard of proof to be eligible for the death penalty? Wouldn't you thus be admitting that there was reasonable doubt in the other cases? Can you just imagine the legal wrangling? Of course every convicted murderer is eligible for the death penalty, because of course they were convicted "beyond reasonable doubt". Except, Kiszko and all the rest of that list and more.
Rolfe.
Last edited:
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
I get what you are saying and as I pointed out I am not a jurist, nor am I saying that my checklist is complete and fully thought out - I am making a suggestion only.
Let's also put the dehumanising society argument (which I personally reckon is nonsense - we could also argue that we dehumanise society through having no death penalty and insult the memory of the victims) to one side for the time being and relate only to the tick sheet.
Would Sutcliffe, Hindley et al meet all the criteria I have suggested?
Would Bundy have met the criteria - any chance they made a mistake there?
And sure, nothing is foolproof so we have to have a 'score of 18 out of 20 (or whatever). The last thing I want is the wrong person executed, but also - as I said perviously - some people's freedom and lives become forfeit by their own inhumanity.
Missing the point. Kiszko also met the criteria, but he was not guilty.
So, you are prepared to execute some innocent people. How many would you accept?
Rolfe
Adult human female
Zooterkin said what I was going to say. Actually, I'm quite satisfied that Sutcliffe, Hindley, Huntley and all the rest are guilty as hell. But then, that tends to be the case until that unsuspected extra bit of evidence comes up that proves otherwise. Once you set a higher bar to be reached in order to allow eligibility for the death penalty - oh, honestly, does anyone want to go there? What a minefield!
And I think this idea that not killing murderers "insults the victims" is Neanderthal.
Rolfe.
And I think this idea that not killing murderers "insults the victims" is Neanderthal.
Rolfe.
That argument just makes no sense in Sutcliffe's case.
We kill innocent people every day- faulty wiring, poor building standards, bad driving, alcohol, war, a hundred other things.
Nobody expects rapid travel to be 100% accident free. Nobody expects medics to save every life and never kill people by their actions or inactions.
Nobody expects 100% accuracy from the legal system. Unquestionably, if we execute everyone found guilty of murder, we will execute the wrong people some of the time.
What error rate is acceptable is a matter for discussion. Somewhere between 0 and 100%, but not either of those figures is a good place to start. Aim for zero by all means, but is it a realistic target?
But the error rate goes down sharply when we deal with people convicted of multiple murders. The evidence rather stacks up. Circumstantial coincidences get less and less probable.
If our legal system is so utterly unreliable that we are still unsure, after 13 murder convictions, that we have the right man, then I'd suggest we need to rethink the whole system from the start.
We kill innocent people every day- faulty wiring, poor building standards, bad driving, alcohol, war, a hundred other things.
Nobody expects rapid travel to be 100% accident free. Nobody expects medics to save every life and never kill people by their actions or inactions.
Nobody expects 100% accuracy from the legal system. Unquestionably, if we execute everyone found guilty of murder, we will execute the wrong people some of the time.
What error rate is acceptable is a matter for discussion. Somewhere between 0 and 100%, but not either of those figures is a good place to start. Aim for zero by all means, but is it a realistic target?
But the error rate goes down sharply when we deal with people convicted of multiple murders. The evidence rather stacks up. Circumstantial coincidences get less and less probable.
If our legal system is so utterly unreliable that we are still unsure, after 13 murder convictions, that we have the right man, then I'd suggest we need to rethink the whole system from the start.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I understand what Soapy is saying, I just disagree.
Worm, I'd be inclinded to suggest that anyone advocating the death penalty should be prepared to go happily to their own death in the event of a miscarriage of justice, content that this is just the price we pay for being able to hang people like Sutcliffe. I know it's probably hard to put yourself in that hypothetical situation, but hey chaps, try!
Rolfe.
Worm, I'd be inclinded to suggest that anyone advocating the death penalty should be prepared to go happily to their own death in the event of a miscarriage of justice, content that this is just the price we pay for being able to hang people like Sutcliffe. I know it's probably hard to put yourself in that hypothetical situation, but hey chaps, try!
Rolfe.
I think part of the question about the death penalty is how it is handled. Either it's almost too fast or people have to wait years for their execution.
And then you have the question how humane the execution itself is. Most methods have drawbacks.
And maybe I'm a bit harsh there but I don't think justics should stoop so low as to kill people for transgressions. If killing is such a heinous act, why balance it with exactly the same heinous act?
And then you have the question how humane the execution itself is. Most methods have drawbacks.
And maybe I'm a bit harsh there but I don't think justics should stoop so low as to kill people for transgressions. If killing is such a heinous act, why balance it with exactly the same heinous act?
Quite simple really - you can give someone the death penalty if you agree to take their place if proved wrong
You , as a citizen of your country, have an obligation , if chosen , to sit on a jury. You're saying you would be less likely to convict if you were sending someone to the gallows than if you were sending him to jail for life?
That's cowardly, dishonest and immoral. It's also illegal.
You have a legal responsibility to deliver your best attempt at a true verdict, but you won't do that if it means killing someone? But you don't mind the risk of being wrong if you just take away his freedom for life, because you (or someone anyway) can pay him off if it turns out you screwed up?
That seems to me to be about as gutless as you can get.
It's an absolute denial of moral responsibility.
I absolutely agree that the responsibility placed on lawyers, judges and jurors is a heavy one and that there should indeed be penalty for egregious error, just as there is penalty for egregious error on the part of a bus driver or any person responsible for the lives of others.
What we need to do, is make as sure as humanly possible that we don't get it wrong. I repeat that if people have so little confidence that we can get a safe conviction even in the case of a multiple murderer, then we need to rethink the system.
As for the simplistic assumption that executing someone is a moral evil. That's an opinion, pure and simple, nothing more. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Or call the troops home and disband the army, navy and air force.
ETA-Moss- Some members of society are more vulnerable than the rest, while others are more vicious and determined to have their way by any means. The point of law is to try to redress that balance in order to protect the weak. (At least that's the only point I can see. ). That means that the state arrogates to itself the right to punish, to incarcerate, to kill. To itself. It's illegal for you to collect taxes from your neighbours- that's called a protection racket. It's illegal for you to demand that I join your army and go abroad to shoot people. That's piracy. It's illegal for you and me to kill a business rival.
It is absolutely legal for the state to do all these things.
Why balk at the last, while accepting the others?
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
To be fair, Soapy, although I can see that what Worm said could be interpreted that way, that wasn't what I thought he meant when I read it. I thought he was making a point about thinking about the consequences of your position, and being able to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Whilst not familiar with the case, nor wishing to derail a fantastic discussion, was he not also convicted prior to the advent of DNA?
In today's society we have far more accurate (near foolproof) ways with some of the forensics that previously had to rely on probability.
What percentage were actually innocent?
Seriously. In the past 15 years or so, those that may have been eligible for the death penalty under the loose guidelines I threw up earlier have been shown to be innocent?
I assume none.
Also bear in mind I am not talking only about execution but permanent incarceration. If there is a modicum of doubt, sure put them away and throw away the key. Their freedom is forfeit. In the miniscule event they are later proven innocent, no harm done (in terms of them having been executed).
I am not advocating 'death to all monsters' - just the ones where there is nothing that is in doubt when it comes to their guilt. eg Hindley, Suttcliffe, Bryant and Milat (in Australia) and others.
What unexpected bit of evidence would prove their innocence?
See also the previous post. What % in say the last 15 years.
Or - how many convicted have now been released?
I thought you might say something like that. Insulting others is not valid debate.
If it was, I would have said something like: "the argument about dehumanising society is ideological-left wing-new age-feel good nonsense borne of the hope to be seen to be doing good rather than actually achieving anything and is supported by weak willed lily livered apologists".
But I didn't say that.
Last edited by a moderator:
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
I don't know about actual death penalty cases (in the US), but I do know that there have been cases in the UK that would have had at least a fair likelyhood of getting the death penalty if we still had it which have turned out to be miscarriages of justice. The Guildford Four are the most obvious to spring to mind.
Oh I forgot, back when we did have the death penalty, there was Derek Bentley, who later had his conviction overturned.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/18/miscarriages-justice-history
And not included in that list there is Sion Jenkins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Billie-Jo_Jenkins
Oh I forgot, back when we did have the death penalty, there was Derek Bentley, who later had his conviction overturned.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/18/miscarriages-justice-history
And not included in that list there is Sion Jenkins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Billie-Jo_Jenkins
Last edited:
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Come on UK! No one is asking you to bring back capital punishment but please, keep folks like Sutcliffe behind bars forever.
Hallo Alfie
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 10,691
Pre DNA
Pre DNA
Ruling overturned within five years of the original conviction. While not familiar with the case, there seems plenty of wriggle room in the original conviction and under the proposal I put up it is very doubtful he would have been executed - no harm done.
Do we have any in the past 15 years?
I would really like to find one instance of this occuring - then I can 'shut up'. The "what of we make a mistake" argument just doesn't seem to wash in this day and age.
Agreed, can't hang him now. But what of the future monsters.
Like I say, at some point these peoples lives and/or freedoms become permanently forfeit.
Last edited: