If there was a referendum to bring back the death penalty..

Lord Foul wrote:

Syl wrote:

And that's what many people who are against the death penalty love....the fact that someone craves death and is being kept alive to suffer, which is a lot more vengeful than wanting to see someone put to death quickly.

The point is it makes no difference to me what the convicted want, they  have lost the right to decide whether they live or die, starve themselves to death or linger for years like Brady......they should be dead.

how many more times...brady would never have hung.....he was criminally insane....and ...once again we do NOT hang insane people

Lord Foul wrote:grammar nazi...

Lord Foul wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't think I missed it or dodged it, I answered and said we obviously see things differently.

I said at the beginning of the thread that the death penalty should only be used for the most heinous of crimes and only when guilt is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Technology and DNA  testing has  advanced beyond measure since we last had the death penalty, so no mistakes could be made.

                                       



I never said hang them all (they are your words not mine)....I have already said hanging is barbaric.
I don't consider it getting a 'pound of flesh' either...I have already explained that to me the death penalty is not about revenge.

As I said we see things differently. Yesterday you were stating that  the victims families should be the ones to carry out the death sentence if it was ever re instated, according to you it was cowardly and weak to expect the state to do it. YOU would want to do it yourself and look them in the eye when their lights went out....in fact you alternated between John Wayne and Mary Poppins throughout the thread.....at least my views have remained consistent.

Syl wrote:I'm not a legal expert.....I doubt anyone is on here though they may act as if they are, (though Quill has more knowledge than most)  

Syl wrote:I agree no one can be 'more guilty'...they are either found guilty or innocent.
If there is any reasonable  doubt a jury is instructed to return a not guilty verdict.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:I agree no one can be 'more guilty'...they are either found guilty or innocent.
If there is any reasonable  doubt a jury is instructed to return a not guilty verdict.

That's not what I mean, and you know it. You say that only someone who is guilty without a doubt should be executed. There's no such thing as one person being more guilty than another once the verdict of guilty has been reached. You can't say that out of two people who have been found guilty of a capital crime, one is more guilty than the other - how would you define such a thing?

Syl wrote:I agree no one can be 'more guilty'...they are either found guilty or innocent.
If there is any reasonable  doubt a jury is instructed to return a not guilty verdict.

Accessory

Aiding or contributing in a secondary way or assisting in or contributing to as a subordinate.
In Criminal Law, contributing to or aiding in the commission of a crime. One who, without being present at the commission of an offense, becomes guilty of such offense, not as a chief actor, but as a participant, as by command, advice, instigation, or concealment; either before or after the fact or commission.
One who aids, abets, commands, or counsels another in the commission of a crime.
In common law, an accessory could not be found guilty unless the actual perpetrator was convicted. In most U.S. jurisdictions today, however, an accessory can be convicted even if the principal actor is not arrested or is acquitted. The prosecution must establish that the accessory in some way instigated, furthered, or concealed the crime. Typically, punishment for a convicted accessory is not as severe as that for the perpetrator.
An accessory must knowingly promote or contribute to the crime. In other words, she or he must aid or encourage the offense deliberately, not accidentally. The accessory may withdraw from the crime by denouncing the plans, refusing to assist with the crime, contacting the police, or trying to stop the crime from occurring.
An accessory before the fact is someone behind the scenes who orders a crime or helps another person commit it. Many jurisdictions now refer to accessories before the fact as parties to the crime or even accomplices. This substitution of terms can be confusing because accessories are fundamentally different from accomplices. Strictly speaking, whereas an Accomplice may be present at the crime scene, an accessory may not. Also, an accomplice generally is considered to be as guilty of the crime as the perpetrator, whereas an accessory has traditionally received a lighter punishment.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Accessory

Grand jury report criticizes Oklahoma officials over botched executions
Published May 20, 2016
FoxNews.com

Oct. 9, 2014: The gurney in the the execution chamber at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester is shown. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)
A grand jury investigating three botched executions in Oklahoma found that state officials in charge of the process were "careless, cavalier and in some circumstances dismissive of established procedures," but did not hand down any indictments. 
State Attorney General Scott Pruitt had called for the grand jury investigation after the provider of Oklahoma's execution drugs sent the wrong chemical for Richard Glossip's scheduled Sept. 30 execution.
In that case, the grand jury's report found that Gov. Mary Fallin's general cousel, Steve Mullins, advocated for the use of potassium acetate in the execution, even though the state's lethal injection protocol calls for potassium chloride, which stops the heart.
"The governor's general counsel stated potassium chloride and potassium acetate were basically one in the same (sic) drug, advising deputy attorney general to 'Google it,'" the grand jury report said. Mullins also argued that the state shouldn't file a stay for Glossip's execution because "it would look bad for the state of Oklahoma because potassium acetate had already been used in (Charles) Warner's execution (in January 2015)."
A deputy attorney general said she did look up potassium acetate online and found that it wasn't one and the same. Fallin issued a last-minute stay for Glossip, who remains on death row.
"It is unacceptable for the governor's general counsel to so flippantly and recklessly disregard the written protocol and the rights of Richard Glossip," the grand jury said in its report.
Mullins resigned in February as Fallin's general counsel. The head of the prison system, Robert Patton, and the penitentiary warden, Anita Trammell, also quit after appearing before the grand jury.
The report also was critical of Trammell, identified in the report as "Warden A," for not notifying anyone about the receipt of potassium acetate. It was revealed after Glossip's execution was called off that Warner had been executed with the same wrong drug.
"Although the department and the state would have suffered embarrassment and criticism had Warden A told someone the wrong drug had been received for the Warner execution, potentially years of litigation and this investigation could have been avoided," the report said. "It is inexcusable for a senior administrator with 30 years as a department employee to testify that 'there are just some things you ask questions about, and there's some things you don't.'"
Fallin said said she was still analyzing the report, but she expressed confidence in the ability of prison officials to carry out executions in the future. Oklahoma's court system had put executions on hold pending the grand jury's probe.
The drug mix-ups followed a botched execution in April 2014 in which inmate Clayton Lockett struggled on a gurney before dying 43 minutes into his lethal injection — and after the state's prisons chief ordered executioners to stop.
The grand jury suggested the state should study the use of nitrogen gas to administer the death penalty, saying it would be "easy and inexpensive to obtain" and "simple to administer." Oklahoma now uses a three-drug protocol, beginning with the surgical sedative midazolam, in its executions. But the Oklahoma Legislature last year authorized the use of nitrogen gas in executions if lethal injection were ever ruled unconstitutional or if the drugs became unavailable. Nitrogen gas has never been used to execute inmates in the U.S.
Pruitt has said he will not ask the court to schedule any execution dates until at least 150 days — or about five months — after the grand jury results were released and his office is officially notified that the prisons system believes it can execute prisoners according to the state's guidelines. In the meantime, five Oklahoma death row inmates have exhausted their appeals and are awaiting execution dates.
Dale Baich, an assistant federal public defender representing several death row inmates challenging Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol, said executions should remain on hold pending an independent panel led by former Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry.
"The moratorium on executions should continue in order to allow the commission to complete its study and for the federal litigation to be resolved," Baich said.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/20/grand-jury-says-oklahoma-officials-were-careless-in-managing-executions.html

Syl wrote:Human error....wouldn't you know it.

"The governor's general counsel stated potassium chloride and potassium acetate were basically one in the same (sic) drug, advising deputy attorney general to 'Google it,'" the grand jury report said. Mullins also argued that the state shouldn't file a stay for Glossip's execution because "it would look bad for the state of Oklahoma because potassium acetate had already been used in (Charles) Warner's execution (in January 2015)."
A deputy attorney general said she did look up potassium acetate online and found that it wasn't one and the same. Fallin issued a last-minute stay for Glossip, who remains on death row.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not what I mean, and you know it. You say that only someone who is guilty without a doubt should be executed. There's no such thing as one person being more guilty than another once the verdict of guilty has been reached. You can't say that out of two people who have been found guilty of a capital crime, one is more guilty than the other - how would you define such a thing?

If there is any doubt you wont be found guilty in law no matter what the punishment would be.
So I don't know what you mean.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If there is any doubt you wont be found guilty in law no matter what the punishment would be.
So I don't know what you mean.

So you're saying that anyone who has been found guilty of a particular crime should be executed then. In that case, there's no need to qualify it by saying that it only should only happen when guilt is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Or are you saying that being proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is different?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

If there is any doubt you wont be found guilty in law no matter what the punishment would be.
So I don't know what you mean.

So you're saying that anyone who has been found guilty of a particular crime should be executed then. In that case, there's no need to qualify it by saying that it only should only happen when guilt is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Or are you saying that being proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is different?

Stormee wrote:DNA is ace, how can you be not guilty if DNA PROVES you are?

Lord Foul wrote:

Stormee wrote:DNA is ace, how can you be not guilty if DNA PROVES you are?

by all the usual methods....shoddy workmanship in collecting specimins, poor lab practice resulting in cross contamination...

there was a prog on TV about 5 years back which showed exactly how these things work

and with ONE exception     ALL that DNA evidence proves  (and even then it can be argued) is that you were present , at some point within a long time frame, at the scene....it does NOT show that you are guilty of the crime... (the argument is that some one who visited YOU  (or sat on the same bus seat as you ) could have picked up a trace of your DNA and carried it there....like a hair on clothing etc...)

you could have been present at anytime within a time period of a few hours to a few months, depending.....

DNA evidence is NOT 100% ...its not even 80% when ALL factors are taken into account....


for instance

a stiff is found at the road side...next to it is the fresh discarded fag end (with your DNA on it) that you slung out the window of your car 12 hours BEFORE the stiff was dumped.....

LordFoul posted > DNA evidence is NOT 100% ...its not even 80% when ALL factors are taken into account....for instance

a stiff is found at the road side...next to it is the fresh discarded fag end (with your DNA on it) that you slung out the window of your car 12 hours BEFORE the stiff was dumped..... 

4EVER2 wrote:

LordFoul posted > DNA evidence is NOT 100% ...its not even 80% when ALL factors are taken into account....for instance

a stiff is found at the road side...next to it is the fresh discarded fag end (with your DNA on it) that you slung out the window of your car 12 hours BEFORE the stiff was dumped..... 

Lame & weak ...
Investigation will prove the connection to the victim/or lack there of - time line for evidence placement {like that doesn't happen every time/every where they gather all traces of evidential material} a cigarette BUTT does not make a direct link/connection to the victim. 
WTH TV shows have you been watching

Syl wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Stormee wrote:DNA is ace, how can you be not guilty if DNA PROVES you are?

by all the usual methods....shoddy workmanship in collecting specimins, poor lab practice resulting in cross contamination...

there was a prog on TV about 5 years back which showed exactly how these things work

and with ONE exception     ALL that DNA evidence proves  (and even then it can be argued) is that you were present , at some point within a long time frame, at the scene....it does NOT show that you are guilty of the crime... (the argument is that some one who visited YOU  (or sat on the same bus seat as you ) could have picked up a trace of your DNA and carried it there....like a hair on clothing etc...)

you could have been present at anytime within a time period of a few hours to a few months, depending.....

DNA evidence is NOT 100% ...its not even 80% when ALL factors are taken into account....


for instance

a stiff is found at the road side...next to it is the fresh discarded fag end (with your DNA on it) that you slung out the window of your car 12 hours BEFORE the stiff was dumped.....

Well that would never be classed as conclusive evidence that you killed anyone, just that you had once been in that area.

Another example, a young child is raped and murdered and your DNA has been found inside her vagina.
I doubt that could be explained by cross contamination.

Syl wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
Lame & weak ...
Investigation will prove the connection to the victim/or lack there of - time line for evidence placement {like that doesn't happen every time/every where they gather all traces of evidential material} a cigarette BUTT does not make a direct link/connection to the victim. 
WTH TV shows have you been watching

If LF had said a lolly stick had been found at the roadside ...then .I think we could guess which TV shows he had watched.

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:
If LF had said a lolly stick had been found at the roadside ...then .I think we could guess which TV shows he had watched.

I'll leave the to you; he seems to be in his same from the past few days and little of anything I post does nothing more then feed his FOUL MOOD! 

Sooooo overly, sensitive and yet, he seems quite capable to dishing the BS when it suits his highness!     Hmmm, wondering what his testosterone levels is...perhaps it's needing a ~~boost~~?

Syl wrote:Well it has been 6 of one etc lately between them.
He mentions her advanced age she mentions his libido....fair insult swap imo.

Syl wrote:Well it has been 6 of one etc lately between them.
He mentions her advanced age she mentions his libido....fair insult swap imo.

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:Well it has been 6 of one etc lately between them.
He mentions her advanced age she mentions his libido....fair insult swap imo.

What...is my daily pondering yet another topic that he's followed me over to; between here and my post to Irn and any place else --- little Didgy-dooer is staying busier than normal! 
Poor Didgy -    and the adults just keep putting him on 'IGNORE'! 

Stormee wrote:DNA is ace, how can you be not guilty if DNA PROVES you are?

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you're saying that anyone who has been found guilty of a particular crime should be executed then. In that case, there's no need to qualify it by saying that it only should only happen when guilt is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Or are you saying that being proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is different?

I have no idea how you have read my comments and come up with that conclusion.

Have you ever sat on a jury? You are advised before you sit on each and every  case that a guilty verdict may only be passed if there is NO REASONABLE DOUBT. Presuming the jurors are all reasonable, sane   people it's pretty clear what that means. The judge will give direction if required.

That applies whether someone is up for rape, murder or looting their Aunty Fannies savings account.

I have already said that imo the death penalty should only be carried out for the most heinous of crimes, terrorism, rape and murder of children, mass murder were eg I gave.

I said at the beginning of the thread that the death penalty should only be used for the most heinous of crimes and only when guilt is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you're saying that anyone who has been found guilty of a particular crime should be executed then. In that case, there's no need to qualify it by saying that it only should only happen when guilt is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Or are you saying that being proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is different?

WOWSERS...unless 'jolly ole' England' uses such a quaint little unique phrase as "SHADOW" it isn't something our legalize law libraries use!
But here is a link that you should put to good use, seeing your interest is in this vast legal verbiage area...quite fascinating and very useful too.  
http://www.meshbesher.com/legal-resources/dictionary-of-legal-terms#r

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I have no idea how you have read my comments and come up with that conclusion.

Have you ever sat on a jury? You are advised before you sit on each and every  case that a guilty verdict may only be passed if there is NO REASONABLE DOUBT. Presuming the jurors are all reasonable, sane   people it's pretty clear what that means. The judge will give direction if required.

That applies whether someone is up for rape, murder or looting their Aunty Fannies savings account.

I have already said that imo the death penalty should only be carried out for the most heinous of crimes, terrorism, rape and murder of children, mass murder were eg I gave.

I got it from this:

I said at the beginning of the thread that the death penalty should only be used for the most heinous of crimes and only when guilt is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The point is that guilty verdicts are based on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but now you're saying that the death penalty should only be used when there's no shadow of a doubt. Therefore, the implication is that one guilty verdict could be safer than another one, based on your definition of "no shadow of a doubt".

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I got it from this:



The point is that guilty verdicts are based on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but now you're saying that the death penalty should only be used when there's no shadow of a doubt. Therefore, the implication is that one guilty verdict could be safer than another one, based on your definition of "no shadow of a doubt".

Oh right...thanks for explaining because I really had no idea what you meant,


Beyond a shadow of a doubt was just another way of saying beyond reasonable doubt, I don't see any difference really.
But a juror is instructed to base his findings BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT....so that's what I should have said.

Raggamuffin wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
WOWSERS...unless 'jolly ole' England' uses such a quaint little unique phrase as "SHADOW" it isn't something our legalize law libraries use!
But here is a link that you should put to good use, seeing your interest is in this vast legal verbiage area...quite fascinating and very useful too.  
http://www.meshbesher.com/legal-resources/dictionary-of-legal-terms#r

It's not my phrase, and it's not one I got from our legal system, it's Syl's.

Syl wrote:Yes Rags, but that's the way it's explained  in court.

I didn't realise the one word had caused such confusion....both expressions mean exactly the same in the long run.

Syl wrote:Actually 'Beyond shadow of doubt' is also used in courts, though it means exactly the same thing.......so I wasn't wrong in saying so in the first place.  
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt-mean.htm

Syl wrote:Actually 'Beyond shadow of doubt' is also used in courts, though it means exactly the same thing.......so I wasn't wrong in saying so in the first place.  
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-does-beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt-mean.htm

Syl wrote:Rags and 4Ever...it's 'legal speak'....who can explain that?
Some of it has seeped down into general usage...so it's not that  unusual to say shadow of a doubt, even though doubts don't actually cast shadows.

Syl wrote:Rags and 4Ever...it's 'legal speak'....who can explain that?
Some of it has seeped down into general usage...so it's not that  unusual to say shadow of a doubt, even though doubts don't actually cast shadows.

4EVER2 wrote:

Syl wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
Lame & weak ...
Investigation will prove the connection to the victim/or lack there of - time line for evidence placement {like that doesn't happen every time/every where they gather all traces of evidential material} a cigarette BUTT does not make a direct link/connection to the victim. 
WTH TV shows have you been watching

If LF had said a lolly stick had been found at the roadside ...then .I think we could guess which TV shows he had watched.

I'll leave the to you; he seems to be in his same from the past few days and little of anything I post does nothing more then feed his FOUL MOOD! 

Sooooo overly, sensitive and yet, he seems quite capable to dishing the BS when it suits his highness!     Hmmm, wondering what his testosterone levels is...perhaps it's needing a ~~boost~~?