M18CTID
Well-Known Member
Errrr, no.
Let me put this another way - if a member of your family was wrongly convicted of a murder they didn't commit and was then subsequently executed would you still be in favour of the death penalty?
Capital Punishment.
- Thread starter Mr Kobayashi
- Start date
Let me put this another way - if a member of your family was wrongly convicted of a murder they didn't commit and was then subsequently executed would you still be in favour of the death penalty?
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
As much as I dislike the yanks they don't fudge. Incarceration is just that. If it's life, it's life.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
How’s that working out for them in terms of their crime rates?
remember arthur mann
Well-Known Member
Just confirming why I don't like the American system.
hilts
Well-Known Member
It is when the circumstances were as dodgy as that.
i kne albert davy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 12,193
Errr no
Let me put this another way - if a member of your family was murdered by a murder released to murder again would you still be in favour of murders walking our streets again.
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
You're conflating 2 separate issues but seeing as though you asked, I'll answer. No, I probably wouldn't. So now I've answered that, perhaps you can do me a favour and answer my question. Would you still be in favour of the death penalty if an innocent member of your family was executed for a crime they didn't commit?
Even in the US, only about 2% of murderers are sentenced to death, and the majority of those are likely to be on such long sentences that they'd never get out, or would be incredibly old when they did.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Depends which relative!
i kne albert davy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 12,193
Well I did have a mother in law :-) to but to be honest I’d like to think my close family or friends wouldn’t put themselves in a position where they could be wrongly convicted of murder especially with the latest forensic tests.
BigJoe#1
Well-Known Member
Could there not be very high threshold surrounding the guilty verdict and the evidence submitted?
For example people like the Southport murderer and the Nottingham murderer have/had very little to no defence against them committing the crimes. Others such as Peter Sullivan who do not plead guilty and protest their innocence all the way, I would not imagine he could be considered for the Death Sentence. It's whether or not such a threshold can be determined.
I would not anticipated seeing every murder conviction getting the Death Sentence but would hope that where there is indisputable evidence such as being caught with a knife in your hand and participating in the act of murder then maybe you could get a Death sentence - Also, It may just act as a deterrent and avoid or reduce future murders... then again who knows?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
So you would then have three verdicts: not guilty, probably guilty and definitely guilty.
i kne albert davy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 12,193
Don't the Yanks have 1st and 2nd degree murder, not sure what the difference is with you still being dead like.
BigJoe#1
Well-Known Member
No I don't think so. Just Guilty or Not Guilty.
The level of punishment if found guilty would be where there may be some subjectivity and some responsibility on the Judge to review and assess the evidence presented to see if it was watertight and beyond any reasonable doubt.... if it wasn't then the Death Penalty could not be applied.
Just a thought.
BigJoe#1
Well-Known Member
Isn't first degree murder where the intent was there? i.e you have a gun and you search for your victim and you are proven to have killed them.
2nd degree I think is, if you go out and beat the shit out of someone not necessarily to kill them, but as a result of your actions they die... maybe that'd be manslaughter?
Might not be correct but the definition is something along these line... will leave it to the legal experts on here.
hilts
Well-Known Member
Not really, a guilty verdict under a definition to be determined like say Southport would then go to the relatives and then 3 judges. If judges can't decide what a slam dunk conviction is then God help us. If we had capital punishment now with the circumstances of the chap who just got out of Jail he wouldn't have been looking at execution. He wouldn't even have been convicted.
His release just came at the right time for some simpletons to think they could post bollocks as a told you so.
It will take a bit more than that I'm afraid. Not that it matters it ain't gonna happen anyhow.
Username Required
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2021
- Messages
- 2,008
- Team supported
- MCFC
There are 52 jurisdictions in The United States - 50 states, Federal, and military. People need to keep that in mind, along with the fact that we inherited the THE COMMON LAW. It is a simple matter taking seconds to find out the difference between First & Second Degree murder and why. I won't bother doing it here.
This is from the Australian National University Law School but it could have been written by an American.
The Constitution is the highest law. Beneath the Constitution, there are two main sources of law: statutory law and the common law. Correspondingly, other than constitutional interpretation, there are two main modes of legal reasoning: statutory interpretation and common law reasoning. Common law reasoning is, in many ways, more fundamental than statutory interpretation. In contrast to the civil law legal system [e.g. France], we call our system a common law legal system. Common law reasoning is foundational to our legal system. Besides a common law approach to case law, we also speak of a common law approach to constitutional interpretation and a common law approach to statutory interpretation. Common law reasoning permeates all areas of law in our legal system. The course will cover the following topics: history and theory of the common law; the doctrine of stare decisis; separating ratio from obiter; deductive and inductive reasoning; reasoning by analogy and disanalogy.
programsandcourses.anu.edu.au
Why do Americans distinguish between First and Second Degree? Well, because idealist Americans looked at the number of offenses the British government deemed worthy of death and didn't care for the approach.
The more enlightened framers of the states’ legal systems were generally not in favour of bloodthirsty criminal codes, which treated murder, rape, theft and forgery equally – usually with the death penalty. Reformers wanted the punishment to fit the crime. A great many were not in favour of capital punishment at all. As the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784 put it: “[A] multitude of sanguinary laws is both impolitic and unjust. The true design of all punishments being to reform, not to exterminate, mankind.”
Taking another human life was regarded as by far the worst of all crimes (unless, appallingly, that human being happened to be a slave), and in 1794, Pennsylvania enacted an important, innovative law about murder.
Lawrence Friedman notes in A History of American Law that it didn’t take long for this idea to catch on. Virginia adopted the concept almost immediately, Ohio followed in 1824, New York changed its laws accordingly in 1827 and Missouri fell into line in 1835.
www.paddyhirsch.com
This is a 2 minute read about First and Second Degree, Felony Murder, and Manslaughter.
This is from the Australian National University Law School but it could have been written by an American.
The Constitution is the highest law. Beneath the Constitution, there are two main sources of law: statutory law and the common law. Correspondingly, other than constitutional interpretation, there are two main modes of legal reasoning: statutory interpretation and common law reasoning. Common law reasoning is, in many ways, more fundamental than statutory interpretation. In contrast to the civil law legal system [e.g. France], we call our system a common law legal system. Common law reasoning is foundational to our legal system. Besides a common law approach to case law, we also speak of a common law approach to constitutional interpretation and a common law approach to statutory interpretation. Common law reasoning permeates all areas of law in our legal system. The course will cover the following topics: history and theory of the common law; the doctrine of stare decisis; separating ratio from obiter; deductive and inductive reasoning; reasoning by analogy and disanalogy.
Common Law Reasoning - ANU
programsandcourses.anu.edu.au
Why do Americans distinguish between First and Second Degree? Well, because idealist Americans looked at the number of offenses the British government deemed worthy of death and didn't care for the approach.
The more enlightened framers of the states’ legal systems were generally not in favour of bloodthirsty criminal codes, which treated murder, rape, theft and forgery equally – usually with the death penalty. Reformers wanted the punishment to fit the crime. A great many were not in favour of capital punishment at all. As the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784 put it: “[A] multitude of sanguinary laws is both impolitic and unjust. The true design of all punishments being to reform, not to exterminate, mankind.”
Taking another human life was regarded as by far the worst of all crimes (unless, appallingly, that human being happened to be a slave), and in 1794, Pennsylvania enacted an important, innovative law about murder.
All other murder was murder in the second degree. Only murder in the first degree was punishable by death.
Lawrence Friedman notes in A History of American Law that it didn’t take long for this idea to catch on. Virginia adopted the concept almost immediately, Ohio followed in 1824, New York changed its laws accordingly in 1827 and Missouri fell into line in 1835.
Murder in the first degree - a history - Paddy Hirsch
I had always thought of ‘murder in the first degree’ as something dating back to mediaeval times in England. It certainly has that ring to it. But it turns out, it’s not an ancient concept at all, nor is it English. The idea that there are degrees of murder, and consequently different...
www.paddyhirsch.com
This is a 2 minute read about First and Second Degree, Felony Murder, and Manslaughter.
Username Required
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2021
- Messages
- 2,008
- Team supported
- MCFC
As to the U.K. and the law vis-a-vis murder, manslaughter and so on, there have been rumblings for the last 20 years.
In November 2006 the Law Commission published the consequent report, “Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide”. The report recommended, amongst other things, that instead of the current two-tier structure of general homicide offences, namely murder and manslaughter, there should be a three-tier structure: First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, and Manslaughter.
*snip*
fast forward to 2023
Following a meeting with the Prime Minister, the HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate were asked to undertake an urgent inspection into the CPS actions in the prosecution of Calocane.
The review was published in March 2024...
*snip*
The review reignited the debate about reforming the law of murder:
“It is understandable why the bereaved families find the decision by the CPS to accept the pleas of not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter difficult to accept. Their loved ones were violently killed by an offender who knew what he was doing was wrong and who intended to kill them. The term manslaughter has the perception to underplay the gravity of what has taken place. In 2006 the Law Commission recommended that there should be three tiers of homicide: first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter. The Law Commission found that the potential use of the term second degree murder to describe the verdict a jury must reach when a partial defence of diminished responsibility is available was strongly supported by groups representing victims’ families. If the recommendation of the Law Commission in 2006 had been accepted and implemented, the unlawful killings in this tragic case would have been categorised as murder, albeit second degree murder.” (1.10)
The Calocane review asked the government to consider a number of matters, including whether homicide should be categorised into the three tiers, as recommended by the Law Commission in 2006.
www.mountfordchambers.com
Published: December 6, 2024
The Law Commission has agreed to take on a project reviewing the law on homicide and the sentencing framework for murder. The review follows a request from the Lord Chancellor and recognises the vital importance of making sure that the gravest offences recognised by the criminal law in England and Wales work effectively in the 21st century.
The Commission last considered homicide law almost 20 years ago.
*snip*
Professor Penney Lewis, Commissioner for Criminal Law, said,
“I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor has asked us to conduct this review and revisit homicide law. The public are rightly concerned that homicides are correctly categorised, for example as murder or manslaughter, and sentenced appropriately. We will review homicide offences and defences, and sentencing for murder, to ensure that the homicide regime operates fairly and justly.”
lawcom.gov.uk
In November 2006 the Law Commission published the consequent report, “Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide”. The report recommended, amongst other things, that instead of the current two-tier structure of general homicide offences, namely murder and manslaughter, there should be a three-tier structure: First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, and Manslaughter.
*snip*
fast forward to 2023
Following a meeting with the Prime Minister, the HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate were asked to undertake an urgent inspection into the CPS actions in the prosecution of Calocane.
The review was published in March 2024...
*snip*
The review reignited the debate about reforming the law of murder:
“It is understandable why the bereaved families find the decision by the CPS to accept the pleas of not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter difficult to accept. Their loved ones were violently killed by an offender who knew what he was doing was wrong and who intended to kill them. The term manslaughter has the perception to underplay the gravity of what has taken place. In 2006 the Law Commission recommended that there should be three tiers of homicide: first degree murder, second degree murder and manslaughter. The Law Commission found that the potential use of the term second degree murder to describe the verdict a jury must reach when a partial defence of diminished responsibility is available was strongly supported by groups representing victims’ families. If the recommendation of the Law Commission in 2006 had been accepted and implemented, the unlawful killings in this tragic case would have been categorised as murder, albeit second degree murder.” (1.10)
The Calocane review asked the government to consider a number of matters, including whether homicide should be categorised into the three tiers, as recommended by the Law Commission in 2006.
Murder – a case for reform. - Mountford Chambers - London Barristers Chambers
Joe Hingston considers the case of Calocane and the question of diminished responsibility.
www.mountfordchambers.com
Law Commission to review law and sentencing in homicide
Published: December 6, 2024
The Law Commission has agreed to take on a project reviewing the law on homicide and the sentencing framework for murder. The review follows a request from the Lord Chancellor and recognises the vital importance of making sure that the gravest offences recognised by the criminal law in England and Wales work effectively in the 21st century.
The Commission last considered homicide law almost 20 years ago.
*snip*
Professor Penney Lewis, Commissioner for Criminal Law, said,
“I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor has asked us to conduct this review and revisit homicide law. The public are rightly concerned that homicides are correctly categorised, for example as murder or manslaughter, and sentenced appropriately. We will review homicide offences and defences, and sentencing for murder, to ensure that the homicide regime operates fairly and justly.”
Law Commission to review law and sentencing in homicide – Law Commission
Reforming the law
lawcom.gov.uk
The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
Trouble is though, law enforcement aren’t whiter than white. They’re not above fitting people up nor suppressing evidence, as often getting a conviction is the only goal.
Not only that, for some unfathomable reason, the ‘state’ are hugely reluctant to change anything once a guilty verdict is reached, no matter how compelling the evidence.
hilts
Well-Known Member
If you're saying a case like Southport could fiddle eye witnesses, bent coppers, false dna, go through a jury who all say guilty, a dodgy judge then passing a sentence, followed by 3 further judges to determine if the death penalty is warranted would mean a miscarriage of justice then I'm not sure we should even send anyone to prison :-)
Your trying to hard to dismiss an opinion that's never gonna happen anyhow.