You mean the sorts of fair trials that have previously resulted in miscarriages of justice?It wouldn't be appropriate to prejudge a trial before a verdict has been returned by a jury through a fair trial
You mean the sorts of fair trials that have previously resulted in miscarriages of justice?It wouldn't be appropriate to prejudge a trial before a verdict has been returned by a jury through a fair trial
Why not have a debate, see the overall public mood towards the death penalty? If it turns out to be a popular policy and attracts votes...
In all cases the jury was beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime.You mean the sorts of fair trials that have previously resulted in miscarriages of justice?
Oh good. Let’s have a vote on whether we should all be given a million quid.But we also live in a democracy
One of those fair trials where we have stripped people of their human rights?It wouldn't be appropriate to prejudge a trial before a verdict has been returned by a jury through a fair trial
Well of course, but what about the human rights of the victims of the crime? Does the prepentator consider such things while committing the crime?One of those fair trials where we have stripped people of their human rights?
You would need huge faith in the judical system (which it appears many Reform voters do not have) and the government overseeing it (which anyone with any sense surely doesn't have).
I don't get the benefits.
Reform are the party of posh boys in favour of de-regulation to reward their mates.The second thing Reform will do is remove the NHS to a lucrative insurance system. Insurances that put premiums up at every opportunity, that find clauses not to cover a particular ailment, and will be very profitable for the insurance companies.
Reform might say, it will be like Germany or France's insurance based health system but you can bet your house on it soon becoming more and more like America.
The point is that we as a society are supposed to be better than them.Well of course, but what about the human rights of the victims of the crime? Does the prepentator consider such things while committing the crime?
They're likely to be pretty rare though. Look at cases such as Letby, where the arguments are still going on.In all cases the jury was beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime.
Which is why I'm saying that shouldn't the be standard, with DNA testing these days and CCTV you could build a case against someone where it's indefensible
And if the death penalty was introduced it should only ever be used in such rare cases, that's my point.They're likely to be pretty rare though. Look at cases such as Letby, where the arguments are still going on.
And, what would be the main benefit of the death penalty in your view?
So you see it as a cost-saving measure?And if the death penalty was introduced it should only ever be used in such rare cases, that's my point.
Anyone guilty of committing a crime of such severity to warrant such punishment should not be allowed the luxury of having 3 meals a day, the possibility of attacking prison guards over and over.
The example I linked just now, the guy is locked in an isolated cell watched by 5 guards and a dog 24/7.
Perhaps that's one angle, another is an eye for an eye, some people might feel more at peace once due process has been carriedSo you see it as a cost-saving measure?
You’re probably not old enough to remember the death penalty.Well of course, but what about the human rights of the victims of the crime? Does the prepentator consider such things while committing the crime?
If we ever had an eye for an eye, the whole world would end up blind.Perhaps that's one angle, another is an eye for an eye, some people might feel more at peace once due process has been carried
Do you consider Japan as a civilised country?You’re probably not old enough to remember the death penalty.
It should never have any place in civilised society.
What about if the victims do not want the death penalty for the perpetrator? Are you suggesting we take that into account too?Well of course, but what about the human rights of the victims of the crime? Does the prepentator consider such things while committing the crime?
Then the prosecution should not be chasing a death penalty sentence, instead a whole life order.What about if the victims do not want the death penalty for the perpetrator? Are you suggesting we take that into account too?
I struggle to see the benefits of the death penalty, why do you want it?
I can answer that and within my definition no.
That's revenge not justice.Perhaps that's one angle, another is an eye for an eye, some people might feel more at peace once due process has been carried
And a dog won Britain's Got Talent.Because the public voted 'Mrs Brown's Boys" the best sitcom of the 21st Century.